CRIA Prepares To Sue P2P Copyright Violators

Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2003-12-16 14:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Class. Action. Lawsuit.

Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:06 · Score: 0

Well, I'm doomed. I won't be able to post after they take all my computer hardware as part of their 'settlement'. It was nice knowing you all. =/
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by RalphBNumbers · 2003-12-16 15:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why just the buyers? Hardware sellers are getting screwed here two.

Levy -> higher prices for consumers -> less sales -> less profits

--
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by ADOT+Troll · 2003-12-16 16:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

For every downloader, there must be an uploader. Someone made the data being downloaded available for access. Someone set up the machine that hosts said data. Someone arranged for a network connection to be set up for that machine. Someone controls the machine that is sending the data stream, and that person, or people, would likely be considered the uploader in any legal situation. It's a dinky distinction, but I've heard about the gaping loophole in Canadian law that allows this to take place. I'm tempted to investigate the legalese myself just to see if that loophole really does exist.
That said, CRIA is a bunch of money-grubbing goons, the exact equivalent of the RIAA. I haven't bought a CD in years, due to my own personal lack of disposable income available for frills like CDs, but even saying that there are very few new discs I would purchase, and not many old discs I have the time and money to hunt down. I have some news for CRIA--the economy's sucked as of late, one of the largest markets is still crawling out of a very bad summer (did you idiots forget SARSstock???), and music that gets radio play has become, for the most part, so derivative it hurts to listen. Thank goodness for community radio and bars with live music.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by MrLint · 2003-12-16 16:30 · Score: 1

What happens in the RIAA fantasy world when these canadian are paying for music that htey cant get because the **AA has shutdown all the music sources.. the riaa keeps the money? and the ppl are paying for nothing? Welcome to techonfeudalism.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Zork+the+Almighty · 2003-12-16 16:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who are you going to sue ? The government ? For making a law you don't like ?

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2003-12-16 17:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not Canadian, but it seems to me the CRIA gave up any right to complain about citizens sharing music amongst themselves when they got their levy on media.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Canadian_Daemon · 2003-12-16 17:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

For every downloader, there must be an uploader.
but that uploader doesnt necessarily have to be canadian.

--
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by beakerMeep · 2003-12-16 18:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who are you going to sue ? The government ? For making a law you don't like ?
Right. Because that's SO UNHEARD OF.

--
meep
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by pikkumyy · 2003-12-16 19:39 · Score: 0

Yes, it would be resonable to expect that. Unfortunately, this only applies to fair use, which is already allowed. So it's a tax for allowing people to do lawful things. Sharing music with your friends or family members is allowed, but sharing it with hundreds or thousands of strangers via internet isn't.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 19:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

All the uploaders can be in countries that can turn round and say "FUCK OFF" to the recording industry, and me, sitting in Canada, can legally leech the shit out of it all and be perfectly safe.

I am disgusted at the levy I have to pay on blank CD's, especially when I do home movies for my Dad of his grandson, and pay the fuckers in the recording industry money to be able to do it, but at least the government had the balls to say "Fine, in that case, downloading is legal". In fact that almost makes the levy worthwhile for the comedy it has provided seeing this happen.

And if you want to avoid the new levy on MP3 players, just buy off of Ebay like I just did. Paid less than half price for a Panasonic MP3/CD player.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 19:49 · Score: 2, Informative

I have no idea exactly what changed with the new ruling, but I know the Canadian ruling was like this.

You have an album, a friend wants it, you copy it for him. That's illegal.

You have an album, a friend wants it, you loan it to them, they copy it. That's legal.

In short, loan someone a CD, they can legally copy it here.

The drop in sales is more likely down to the amount of people boycotting the thieving shits in the industry (Not bought an album since early 2000 myself), and the general decline in quality of releases. I mean when we have shit like American Idol, Canadian Idol etc... Is it any wonder nobody buys the CD's anymore... It's for one very simply reason.

It's all mass produced, carbon copy shit.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by mark-t · 2003-12-16 22:24 · Score: 0

Actually, downloading copyrighted material without permission *isn't* legal in Canada. It's just not viable to go after any reasonable percentage of infringers because catching them is too difficult. This is one of those laws like making mass photocopies of magazine articles or books - technically illegal, but there's pretty much no way anyone's gonna catch you unless you up and confess to it.
And you can go ahead and say that if they aren't going to enforce it, they shouldn't bother to have it, but that won't change anything. Perhaps those who feel strongly enough about the issue might try running at the next election.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 23:52 · Score: 0

If it's legal to copy any album you borrow, I'm suprised the libraries haven't gotten into this. If enough people donated a few cd's each to their local library it could turn into a kind of sneakernet p2p. There are even a few advantages to this, like being able to control the quality of your copies.
Of course that would mean having to leave the house, so it would probably never work.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 02:28 · Score: 0

In fact, one of the primary effects of NAFTA was to allow this; as a result, I believe, Canada is involved in a lawsuit initiated by a US-based multinational for their banning of gasoline containing MTBE for environmental/health reasons.

Of course, banning uploading doesn't trample on the rights of multinational corporations to use populations as trade media (hmm...), so this is largely irrelevant.

Nonetheless, the point is that the system of lawsuits does now hold governments accountable to industry. There is no prima facia reason why it cannot be made accountable to "the people" in the same way.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Dashing+Leech · 2003-12-17 02:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, downloading copyrighted material without permission *isn't* legal in Canada.
As always, RTFA, or here (from a previous Slashdot story), or Canadian Copyright Law.
Indeed, it appears to be legal to download copyrighted songs in Canada, even according to copyright experts and internet law experts. It hasn't been tested in court yet, but it seems prosecutors believe it is legal too so they won't prosecute.
But as the article states, uploading (broadcasting) is clearly illegal. So as long as we Canadians just leech, we're fine (legally speaking).
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by 3terrabyte · 2003-12-17 03:43 · Score: 1

Most public libraries already have CD collections that are very massive (10,000 +)
And unlike when I was a kid (back in vinyl days) it's not just classical music.

--
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-17 12:09 · Score: 1

Yep, he's right. The library I used to frequent in Calgary had everything from current releases (which admittedly had a waiting list) right through to the most obscure Zappa stuff you can imagine:)
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 13:11 · Score: 0

I don't know about Canada, but in the USA we sue the attourney general (e.g. Ashcroft) for a court order preventing the government from enforcing that law on the grounds that it's unconstitutional (or whatever, but I can't think of any other reason that we could have it struck down unless it was unconstitutional).

It's called "judicial review" and the court granted themselves that right in 1803 in the case of MARBURY v. MADISON.
Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by coyotedata · 2003-12-17 14:59 · Score: 1

The Northern States will do anything to get a little attention now and then.

yes.... by xao+gypsie · 2003-12-16 14:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

....because cd sales drops have nothing to do with things like slow economies, declining quality in music, overpriced cds.....

xao

--

xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org

Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 14:57 · Score: 0

What is this slow economy you speak of? The Dow is over 10000 you know. Consumer spending is up too. What's the prob?
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

jobs are the last to come back.

the people still out of work, remind the ones that are still working that "we ain't out of the woods"

and while consumer spending _is_ up, buyers are very fickle right now. and with the riaa doing a nice job of making nice with the general public, don't be surprised when they've effectively stopped p2p, and people STILL AREN'T buying their tripe.

if it takes the destruction of the music industry, before we get a new paradigm,

so be it.

a lot of ppl better start learning how to bus tables.
Re:yes.... by mini+me · 2003-12-16 15:12 · Score: 3, Funny

The problem is the radio. They play the same songs so often that there is no need to buy the CD.

I remember years ago, you'd be hard pressed to catch even the hits you want to hear. Now turn on the radio and there it is, right for your listening pleasure. So why would I bother buying the CD? Why even bother downloading it?
Re:yes.... by flynt · 2003-12-16 15:31 · Score: 1

If people don't like the music, then why are they downloading it to listen to?
Re:yes.... by shark72 · 2003-12-16 15:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

"....because cd sales drops have nothing to do with things like slow economies, declining quality in music, overpriced cds....."

Music quality is a constant; the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same today as it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be: we tend to think of the 1970's as the decade of Dark Side of the Moon or The Long Run or (insert your favorite classic 70's album here), but there was a LOT of crap back then, too. We've just pushed it out of our memory. The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.

Music pricing is another constant. In fact, in the USA, it's gone down a bit. The average price of a CD is down to $13.50 in the US. In 1984, $9.99 was considered a decent price for an LP. That would be $17.30 in 2002 dollars. So, again, the recent huge drop in CD sales can't be attributed to pricing alone, as it's a constant.

This leaves the economy. In one way the economy is definitely a big cause, as an unemployed person may be more liable to resort to pirating music than the same person would if they still had a job. But it's tough to blame the drop in CD sales entirely on the economy, for a couple of reasons: other forms of entertainment (including those that aren't piratable) haven't dropped nearly as much, and while the economy has had its ups and downs over the past several decades, this drop in CD sales is unprecedented.

Claiming that the utter explosion in music piracy over the past few years has absolutely no effect on CD sales is a phenomenon that I call "ignoring the elephant" -- that is, the two-ton elephant in the room wearing a shirt labelled "music piracy." The drop in sales is likely due to many factors, piracy being one of them, but this is a complex issue not easily solved by simple bromides like "it's the economy."

And, of course, economy or not, if the Canadian record companies think that piracy is part of the problem, it's their prerogative to do something about it. Sure, lowering CD prices, working with legitimate download sites, and education are key as well, but sometimes you've just got to kick some ass.

--
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Re:yes.... by Metasquares · 2003-12-16 15:45 · Score: 1

What if you wanted to listen to the same song a year later, though?
Re:yes.... by CrowScape · 2003-12-16 16:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually it's probably more due to competition from the DVD arena. When I spend money on entertainment, it's in the form of a couple DVDs that I can pick up for 17-23 USD, a much better bang-for-my-buck than even $13.50 for CDs. And no, I don't download mp3s. My DVD collection has fast outpaced my CD collection, and I wouldn't compare DVDs to VHS, as I rarely touched that God-awful format. For Christmas I used to have people asking for CDs, but as my friends and relatives started aquiring DVD players, they also started replacing their CD requests with DVD requests.

Of course, this is all anecdotal

--
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Re:yes.... by MikeXpop · 2003-12-16 16:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

We tend to think of the 1970's as the decade of Dark Side of the Moon or The Long Run or (insert your favorite classic 70's album here), but there was a LOT of crap back then, too. We've just pushed it out of our memory. The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.
Ha! I laugh at you. The 70's did have a lot of crap, yes. But it also had more gold than Fort Knox. DSotM, London Calling, The Clash, Nevermind the Bullocks, Wish You Were Here, The Wall, Meddle, [Insert Led Zeppelin album here]. We have nothing like that now. Now it's both crap (Pop-drivel Green Day, Good Charlotte, Backstreet Boys) or just plain "good" (Radiohead, Tool). We have no exceptional bands. At least none that are being pimped by the RIAA.

Disguise it all you want, music has declined.

(Ready for the real shocker? I'm 16.)

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:yes.... by dadragon · 2003-12-16 16:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because most of the time there's one good song per CD of 10-20 tracks. One song is not worth $15, so people download it.

--
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Re:yes.... by Fallout2man · 2003-12-16 16:13 · Score: 1

"but sometimes you've just got to kick some ass."

What about the levies though? I mean honestly, aren't these levies supposed to prevent exactly this type of behavior by the CRIA? If not, then I'd ask they take away those before the CRIA goes sue happy like the RIAA did. If I were Canadian I wouldn't accept a tax to compensate a corrupt oligopoly unless it had something in it for me (legalization of file-sharing).
Re:yes.... by mini+me · 2003-12-16 16:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Impossible. They play it so often that by the time they quit playing it, you never want to hear it again.
Re:yes.... by Saeger · 2003-12-16 16:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
The complete laundry list of reasons why CD sales are dropping...
1. People want online convenience, either from free p2p, or cheap iTunes, or other.
2. People are conditioned to view p2p AS FREE LIKE RADIO, and think nothing of it - it's an advertisement for a concert and merchandise.
3. A down economy.
4. DVDs and Video Games are a much better value!
5. People are done replacing their old LP/cassette collections.
6. Quality of music has dropped thanks to the soulsucking megacorp cookiecutter and "independent" clearchannel promoters.
7. Used CDs are easier to trade through ebay and the like.
8. Independent artists are more accessible now.
9. People are actively sticking it to the RIAA because they know how badly the artists are getting screwed.
10. 192 people are protesting perpetual copyrights...
11. ...unf.
Assign weights to each as you deem fit.
--
--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:46 · Score: 0

This is not all true, quality of music in the main stream has declined, but there is music out there that is just as good as all of the bands you have listed above, its just so much harder to find, these bands are not signed... unless they are sure they can sell...

Problem is most think like this, oh you sound like Green Day they sold this much ill sign you ,should sell etc. etc.

eg: Sum41, Good Charlotte, Blink 182 etc, "and they sell"
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:49 · Score: 0

Troll.
Re:yes.... by dcam · 2003-12-16 16:54 · Score: 1

While I don't disagree with your logic I think you have missed a key cause of dropping CD sales: Competition.

At the moment music sales are competing for the entertainment dollar in a way that they have never had to before today. DVDs, PC Games, Cinemas, the www etc we could go on all day.

Against that background I don't think that current CD prices are justified. This is more of a gut feeling than something that I can put your finger on. So locally CDs generall release at AUS$30. I consider $20 to be a fair price and I rarely buy a CD unless it is = $20.

--
meh
Re:yes.... by xie · 2003-12-16 16:55 · Score: 1

Music quality is a constant; the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same today as it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago.

If the ratio is the same why could I at least listen to the radio back then and not now? Today its no talent boy bands and girls that have to be 1/2 naked to sell cds. Even the crap bands "way back when" I think had more talent then some of the crap being pumped into todays airwaves.
Re:yes.... by zephyr1256 · 2003-12-16 17:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

but there was a LOT of crap back then, too. We've just pushed it out of our memory. The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.
While you have a point, I think you are unjustified in claiming that music quality is actually constant. First, music quality is a subjective factor. Those who think music quality has declined in recent years are correct, though, and no doubt it means they buy less new music. Some others may like new stuff, but even saying that the subjective quality of music 'evens out' or something is little more than a handwaving argument.
Music pricing is another constant. In fact, in the USA, it's gone down a bit. The average price of a CD is down to $13.50 in the US. In 1984, $9.99 was considered a decent price for an LP. That would be $17.30 in 2002 dollars. So, again, the recent huge drop in CD sales can't be attributed to pricing alone, as it's a constant.
But what you ignore is that the value of having a pressed CD has gone down in value to the customer. Even if actual prices have remained relatively constant, that does not the market equilibrium price for CDs stayed the same. Costs of production went down to the point that individuals can burn their own, and digital technology provides alternatives that further devalue the price that the market will bear. Market forces do not acknowledge copyright law or judge decisions. The Recording Industry wants to have their cake and eat it too, using the law to strongarm their customers into paying prices way above market price and keep high profit margins. The end result is inevitably a reduction in sales, primarily because prices are kept too high. Piracy(filesharing in this context) is a side effect of keeping these prices so high, not a cause of a reduction in sales.
But it's tough to blame the drop in CD sales entirely on the economy, for a couple of reasons: other forms of entertainment (including those that aren't piratable) haven't dropped nearly as much, and while the economy has had its ups and downs over the past several decades, this drop in CD sales is unprecedented.
You can't blame it entirely on the economy, but that doesn't mean the remainder must be mainly(or even significantly) due to piracy. Comparisons to other forms of entertainment only goes so far; other forms that haven't seen such drops most certainly have maintained prices more in tune with what the market will bear. Still, I would submit that the economy is a major factor, and moreso when combined with unreasonable expectations of the Industry about what their profit margins 'should' be.
Claiming that the utter explosion in music piracy over the past few years has absolutely no effect on CD sales is a phenomenon that I call "ignoring the elephant" -- that is, the two-ton elephant in the room wearing a shirt labelled "music piracy."
I don't think that is claimed by many people. What is, quite reasonably, claimed is that music piracy has no or little net effect on music sales. Let me explain: its true that people can obtain copies of songs for free and thereby get out of buying something; in some cases they might have bought an album, in other cases not. But there is another phenomenon associated with filesharing, and that is of people being exposed to new music that they would not have discovered otherwise, and as a result of that, going out and buying more CDs. A side benefit is that the customer knows what they are getting as well, so this is more total benefit. I can attest that this was the case with myself and most of my friends back in the days of Napster; I bought many more CDs than I did at any previous period in my life, or since then for that matter. The point here is, there are two elements(at least) that determine whether filesharing helps or hurts sales, the negative element due to people not buying when they otherwise would have and the postitive element of people buying when they otherwise wouldn't
Re:yes.... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2003-12-16 17:14 · Score: 1

And heaven help us if Clearchannel decides to put a crap song into rotation.. :(
Re:yes.... by thales · 2003-12-16 17:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

You are missing one thing that isn't a constant, yhe number of titles released. As the RIAA members merge into larger and larger companies they are releasing fewer and fewer titles each year.

A CD that isn't released will sell ZERO copies

The RIAA is pushing formula music and not releasing as many titles, and it's the bands that haven't made it big that are getting hit the hardest. Some of these bands could have been this years big run away hit, but they never got recorded because they didn't have the formula sound the RIAA is looking for.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:yes.... by aardvarkjoe · 2003-12-16 17:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

(Ready for the real shocker? I'm 16.)

In other words, you're looking at it with three decades of space in between, and probably have never heard the vast majority of the music from that time period, which -- like always -- was crap.

Don't mistake your preference for certain music for being evidence of that music's quality. Do you listen to classical music? Jazz? Gregorian chants? If not, do you deny that there is quality to be found among them?

There are some talented musicians today. Yes, even ones under the big-name labels. Sure, most of today's music is crap, but that's certainly not a change from twenty years ago, fifty years ago, or five hundred years ago.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:yes.... by Al-Hala · 2003-12-16 17:29 · Score: 1

Sometimes, you have to kick some ass
And I'm about to, financially speaking.

I WAS going to purchase a mp3 player in the next month. Now, I think that money can be better spent elsewhere.

And, I'll buy a nice fat hard drive to store all the screenshots and linux distros that I'd normally fill up those CD's I regularly purchase, the one's with the "you're guilty, suck it up princess" levy.

In addition, I'm even less inclined to purchase music now than ever.

Net result? Net loss to the several manufacturers' bottom lines. *shrug* more cash for me, then...
Re:yes.... by ATMAvatar · 2003-12-16 17:44 · Score: 1

Given the rotation I've heard on clearchannel stations, God is dead.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:yes.... by SpamJunkie · 2003-12-16 17:57 · Score: 1

Music quality is a constant

Bullshit. I'd like to see your proof of that.

However I can readily supply evidence that quality has dropped and that history hasn't clouded our minds: the Beatles.

When a band is widely regarded as the best band ever, yet still the highest selling band by RIAA's own admission, you say that music quality is a constant? That band alone, with 150% the sales of the number two slot (who is also a great band of days past, Led Zeppelin) is, mathmatically, a very convincing argument that music quality is dropping.

The problem with music quality is that record companies have realised that they don't need good bands to stick around like they used to. All they need is a constant supply of one hit wonders or one album wonders and they're laughing. They're laughing even harder because they don't have to renegotiate contracts more favourable to successful artists!

The lack of quality music being put out by the majors is a problem in more ways than one. With the Internet their strategy of pumping and dumping artists falls apart because they've trained all their consumers to go for the quick fix - singles they hear on the radio or MTV. Where consumers used to buy a whole album so they could listen to all the gems that the radio wouldn't play kids nowadays don't care for anything besides the latest chart-topper. Even if they have tried buying a few albums they've learned it isn't really worth it because the non-single tracks are poor. The internet offers a cheaper alternative to addict-like consumers that have no concept of brand loyalty.
Suing the people interested in your product will never be a good idea. You won't scare them into buying your music, you'll only scare them away. And with the Internet that is becoming increasingly viable. Whereas non-RIAA music used to be difficult to obtain, now it's just as easy to find as any other music on the Internet. And this will only get easier.

The real solution isn't online stores like iTunes although they're a good idea that will certainly help. If RIAA members would market brand loyalty and respect for physically owning new things CD prices would rise. This is similar to used cars, or even budget cars like KIA: why do so many people buy new cars when used cars are so readily available at greatly reduced cost? You may think it's for convenience, or reliability, but that's only because the automakers' marketting is so pervasive. If you've ever tried dealing with a few car salesmen you might notice there is little convenience to be had in buying a car that way.

If the RIAA members were flexible enough to change their business strategy they would have no problems dealing with digital copying. But they are not. They don't realise that letting kids build up an addiction to possessing hundreds of songs would translate into massive sales when they become adults. They're trying to hold on to an outdated business model. And they're ignoring that tenant of business: supply and demand. Supply is currently high. They must use marketing to compensate and increase demand.
Re:yes.... by TheLoneDanger · 2003-12-16 18:01 · Score: 1

You've forgotten that the RIAA companies are putting out fewer new releases. The number of new releases is down about the same percentage as the drop in CD sales IIRC.

--

"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:02 · Score: 0

What are you talking about!
Dark Side of the Moon (or insert your favourite album) is much better than anything put out today
The good-stuff-to-crap ratio today is 0:1
At least in the past there was some good-stuff!
Re:yes.... by ATMAvatar · 2003-12-16 18:04 · Score: 1

This leaves the economy. In one way the economy is definitely a big cause, as an unemployed person may be more liable to resort to pirating music than the same person would if they still had a job. But it's tough to blame the drop in CD sales entirely on the economy, for a couple of reasons: other forms of entertainment (including those that aren't piratable) haven't dropped nearly as much, and while the economy has had its ups and downs over the past several decades, this drop in CD sales is unprecedented.

You might want to look here.

It is worth noting that CD album sales began to drop right about when the economy tanked.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:yes.... by seanadams.com · 2003-12-16 18:07 · Score: 1

You forgot to mention one thing:

Complete and utter digust with the music industry's attitude towards us, their paying customers.

I have not bought a CD in many years, not for lack of money, disinterest in music, or pirated alternatives.

I simply will not pay money for a product which doesn't work as advertised or limits my choice of playback devices.

I've amassed enough of a collection legally over the years that I don't give a flying fuck about buying any more right now.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 19:55 · Score: 1

Because most of the time there's one good song per CD of 10-20 tracks. One song is not worth $15, so people download it.

Absolutely. CD's are ridiculously overpriced. They're cheaper to mass produce than cassettes, but always retailed at way more than tape.

I used to buy a LOT of music, but I started boycotting the labels in 2000. They polish a turd, and expect you to pay $20 for it. Fuck off. I can't think of one release since then that I've thought "You know, if it wasn't for my boycott, I could have that. Damn my principles!" (Especially as the last big release I was really keen on in 1999 turned out to be such a disappointment.)

I've downloaded a lot of music (I'm in Canada, so it's legal, hahaha!) but I can't think of a single release I've downloaded that I'd have bought the original of. Hell, most stuff I barely listen to it once before shitcanning it. If someone asked me to list my favourite albums right now, there wouldn't be a single post 1999 album in the list.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 19:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

DVD probably IS a big part of the problem. I mean you can get most new releases for less than $10 more than a regular CD, and as you say, it provides more bang for your buck.

I mean really, if someone said "You can have two albums, or one DVD for Christmas" I'd probably have said "DVD" before they'd even finished the sentence.

If I want music, I can turn on the radio, I can turn on any number of streaming stations on the net... I don't have to BUY anything to get noise in my living room. If I want to experience a movie, DVD is the only way to go.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm 32. I grew up during disco. It hurts me as I mostly HATE disco. However, there's a great deal of 70's music that kicks ass. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd etc... I still listen to The Wall now, over 20 years after it was released. I can't think of ANYTHING released these days that people will be listening to in five years, let alone twenty.

The reason? Image. Back in the 70's it was about the music. It didn't matter if the singer had 3 eyes and no nose, and looked like a melted mouse mat, so long as he could sing. (Christ, look at the Floyd guys, hardly photogenic...) These days, if you don't have the looks, you don't get your video anywhere, you don't get the promotion... Basically the whole industry has become style over substance, hence we'll never see classics like "The Wall" again.

You only need to take a look at American Idol, Canadian Idol, Pop Idol etc... To see why the music industry is totally fucked and why nobody is buying anything.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:17 · Score: 1

Okay matey, put your money where your mouth is.

Name 5 talented musicians or groups today that are signed to big labels. By talent I mean innovative, unique artists like Floyd and Zeppelin were in their day.

And for the record, you say about classical, jazz, gregorian... Yep, I listen to all them. In fact the only genres I don't listen to are country and reggae.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:20 · Score: 1

Yes, but there's nothing you can do about it. Groups HAVE complained and protested, and the thing was still passed.

If this kind of thing was passed in the US, you can guarantee it wouldn't be with the proviso that downloading is legal, they'd still let the RIAA fuck you up the ass every which way, while giving them a chunk of change on every blank CD and MP3 player that is sold.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:26 · Score: 1

Competition is a great example of the reason actually.

I mean think about it, 25 years ago, what competition was there for your entertainment dollar? Music and going to the theatre and paying to see a movie you watch and then leave.

I find it interesting that the CRIA is claiming the 23% drop in sales since 1999... 1999... Wasn't that around when DVD started to get mainstream? I mean Matrix was out that year, and I remember a BIG fuss over the Matrix DVD later that year... And that was probably a big selling point for DVD. Lord knows it was the movie that made me sit up and take notice of the format.

For all their failings, the MPAA have done a pretty good job with DVD. Sure, the DeCSS thing is lame etc... But really, a hell of a lot of DVD's these days are stuffed to the gills with cool content, at prices cheaper than movies used to be on VHS for just the movie. The MPAA has realised customers expect more and DVD has provided that. For the price you used to be able to buy one movie for in the early 80's, you can now get, for example, the Alien Quadrilogy, all the Alien movies, and 9 disks worth of content... Now THAT is progress at work in entertainment media.

The RIAA and it's evil brethren are still churning out the same shit, content wise, as they were 30 years ago. Stuffing a shitty Quicktime clip or two on a CD is not "adding value". I mean really, the ONLY improvement over 1973 is the fact that with CD's, we don't have to get up and flip them over halfway through. WOO! SMELL THE PROGRESS!
Re:yes.... by Fallout2man · 2003-12-16 20:49 · Score: 1

If they did something like that here, long story short, there'd be some hell to pay.
Re:yes.... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:55 · Score: 1

Forgive me if I just point and laugh... What on Earth leads you think this? I mean what prior event makes you believe this?
Re:yes.... by Pastis · 2003-12-16 21:20 · Score: 1

You're making nice points. I would like to add some more:

- young people are buying more and more other stuff than music. E.g. DVDs and Console games. In Norway a new DVD costs around 150-200 NOK (over 25$) and a console game costs often 500-600 NOK (over 70$). In comparison CDs are cheap and people buy loads of them. What would be interesting is to see how much money youngs spend now compared to before. I am sure it's much more, and it's just been used differently. Music is not that attractive anymore, it is a declining market.

- real cost of piracy is an order of magnitude much higher in poor countries. I've been to South America, and you can buy pretty much any movie in the street. I've even seen movies currently shown in theaters on what-I-thought-to-be pirated TV channels. I've heard about Asia and it's worse there. Dunno about africa, but I guess it's not far away

- the music industry has been declining, but I would like to compare that to the music-related hardware industry. People are buying more CD players, people are buying more digital players, people are buying PCs to use them as music players, people are buying CD-burners to copy audio CDs. It would be interesting to ask people here about what was the primary uses of their CD-burners, and I am pretty sure that copying a CD, or now burning a DivX movie will be among the first choices. So perhaps Music declines, but it has a spun a big range of other sales. That should be taken into account.

If I used to buy 100 CD a year, and now bought myself 95 CD, 90 CDs or even 77 CDs a year, but I also bought a CD-burner, a RIO mp3 player, and burned 100 CDs should I be considered a bad guy? I don't even talk about the hypocrisy where some companies sell both the content and the hardware including hardware that 'incite' to piracy! MP3 and DivX players are of course targetting the good guy who is a technical lover and has so many medias that he'd better put them on his computer than keep them in CDs). No they target average Joe who's buying half of this CDs and pirating half the others. Real fans don't use MP3 or Ogg, they keep their original CDs and vinyls and play them on their over 2000$ hifi.

So you have a dilema. People have to choose where they put their money. We are asked to be consumers. We are consumers, more than before if we look at the money we spend on average. The commodity that music has become has made it into a less attractive position and there's a shitload of hardware to buy to play your music along with a big competition of other medias.

Do you really believe you are going to decrease the slow down in CD sales by going after the people pirating your music?

Or is it time to rethink your business model?

So what about the music industry:
- going full speed into digital music Sales in Europe, a la Apple and
- focusing on trying to increase their sales in poor countries, which are not yet affected by this competition and which does not have yet the infrastructure to put P2P in evey house?

--
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Re:yes.... by BuckaBooBob · 2003-12-16 21:34 · Score: 1

Music quality is a constant

Buzzt! Wrong answer...
Look at todays youngsters... Its not uncommon to see kids listening to thier parents music albums with very little to no "New" music in their music library... What does that have to say?

Bands 10+ years ago hung in for the long run.. For the most part today There is a much larger Majority of Hit and run Singles groups..

Do you really think that in even 5 years You will see brittany spears Crankin out "Hits" still? No... Her label will dump her as soon as she shows the slightest saging in her breasts or eventually people will get bored with her "Sound" that doesn't seem to change from album to album.

Whats going wrong with Music quality is there is far too much Cloning of sounds going on and less diversity... The record companies have thier magic music formula to "generate hits" and Its really wearing itself thin.

Its gotten to the point where I can't stand to listen to the radio at all anymore.. The same damn songs all day every day top hits hits being played what every 3 mins (well it seems that way).. Even the "Classic" Stations are wearing the livin hell out of old music.. Maybe its Radio thats killing the Music Star :)

--
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
Re:yes.... by Bigbutt · 2003-12-16 23:44 · Score: 1

I dunno. Weird Al's still great :-)

--
Shit better not happen!
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 01:04 · Score: 0

These days, if you don't have the looks, you don't get your video anywhere, you don't get the promotion...
What?!?! Have you SEEN the guy from Radiohead?!
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 02:05 · Score: 0

Piracy is a constant as well.
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 02:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

A Newseek article about a year ago showd the decline in CD sales but also showed the very steep rise in DVD and games sales. I can't remember the fugures but combining the sales of the 3 showed a considerable overall ris ein sales. CD sales may be declining but entertainment sales are rising and fast.
Re:yes.... by radish · 2003-12-17 03:54 · Score: 1

Well I have to disagree. As a music lover, I buy way more CDs and get way more enjoyment from them than DVDs. Don't get me wrong, I still buy DVDs, but I can't think of any I've watched more than 3 or 4 times, which is like 6-8 hours. Compared that to the _many_ CDs I've listened to 100's of times and the value proposition is a lot stronger in my eyes.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:yes.... by 3terrabyte · 2003-12-17 03:55 · Score: 1

Just check out the manufacturing industry. There are hardly ANY customers orders going through there. Still.

--
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Re:yes.... by 3terrabyte · 2003-12-17 04:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yep, lots of interviews with teenagers show that DVD's seem to be a better entertainment dollar. Plus they're new. The sales of DVD players are still going up. So that means more and more people getting DVD's now. Also, people have already replaced their tapes & vinyl, so CD's are no longer 'new'. People are still replacing their VHS.
The computer game market is still going up, up, up, also, so there are at least 2 different entertainment genres in direct competition with music. There is only so much money for a consumer's disposable entertainment cash. Why the Music Industry thinks it's their god given right to make money in a recession is beyond me.

--
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 04:18 · Score: 0

Suggestion:

/mindclosed
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 04:27 · Score: 0

Do you really think that PEOPLE are less talented now than they used to be? Or that something INDUSTRIAL is focing it that way?
Re:yes.... by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-17 05:12 · Score: 1

What?!?! Have you SEEN the guy from Radiohead?!

I have.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go burn and verify some, uh... some "dragons".

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:yes.... by Gonarat · 2003-12-17 06:21 · Score: 1

Not only $ competition, but mindset competition. When I was in High School and College (Grad HS in 1981, College in 1986) Music was a big part of who you were. There were Metalheads (AC/DC, Metallica...) Punk (Sex Pistols, Dead Kennedys...) so on and so forth. In 1983, a friend intoduced me to a group called R.E.M. and the alternative sound. We all made tapes and swapped music, but we also tended to buy the Albums (yes, those 12" black discs) of our favorite groups.

Now fast forward to 2003. My daughter(13)and her friends still listen to music, but DVDs and PS2/Game Cube is what is popular. She is always asking for this or that DVD, and her cousin is the same way (if she is not wanting a new game for her Game Cube). Every once in awhile my Daughter asks for a music CD, but it is very rare, and then mostly around Birthday or Christmas. We just had a birthday bash for her 13th birthday, and she mostly got makeup and stuff like that from her friends. The only entertainment thing she got was Pirates of the Carribean, and she was thrilled. There were no CDs given as a gift.

My daughter likes music, but it isn't a major item in her life, and there aren't many CDs put out this year that she wants. This shift in the importance of music is IMHO a bigger problem for the RIAA than sharing will ever be.

--
Beware of Sleestak
Re:yes.... by Artraze · 2003-12-17 06:50 · Score: 1

Music quality is a constant; the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same today as it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago.
I, personally, am in disagreement with you. I hate almost all current music. I buy no CDs, nor download any tracks. My favorite CDs are from the eary 90s and soundtracks (which I buy).

However, in the larger picture it is correct. Most of the people I know love the crap that's around today. They don't like everything, however, and it seems to proove your theory that the good:bad ratio remains constant. One person like one rap group and hate another, but his friend feels the opposite.

Now, coming back to the topic, the important thing to note is that none of thes people ever downloaded any CDs. Rather, one person would buy one, and then burn five or so copies for his friends. This would cut sales, supposing my experiences applied everywhere, by about 2/3. Then factor in people like me who used to buy CDs, and it's difficult to imagine CD sales are only down by about 25%.
Point being, I think most piracy isn't occuring on the internet, but in groups of friends. They can crack down on uploaders if they want, but I, for freedom's sake, hope they are never capable of cracking down on these type of pirates.
Re:yes.... by MikeXpop · 2003-12-17 06:57 · Score: 1

Mod +1, Space Ghost reference.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:yes.... by Grishnakh · 2003-12-17 07:14 · Score: 1

People aren't any less talented than they ever were. It's the industry that's causing music to be of lesser quality (at least among RIAA members' offerings).

The big thing that isn't a constant over the years is the record companies' business practices and methods of finding new artists. This is what has directly led to crappy music.
Re:yes.... by G-funk · 2003-12-17 11:35 · Score: 1

Ready for the real shocker? I'm 16.

NO, 16? Getouttatown! That could explain why you think there was no crap music in the 70s, because you never heard it? And it's bollocks... a bullock is a male cow.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:yes.... by MikeXpop · 2003-12-17 11:43 · Score: 1

"The 70's did have a lot of crap, yes." - Me, in your parent post.

Sorry, thanks for playing.

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:yes.... by jazzer · 2003-12-17 18:56 · Score: 1

Actually, I'm 25 and I'm still listening to stuff from when I was 15 and I can picture myself listening to it in 30 years. :) I can think of quite a few bands and albums that will go on to become classics from that time.

Take note, in the late '60's and '70's there was a revolution in music, in the early '90's that happened again (I know some will argue this). Soon enough you'll see, history repeats itself. Right now, the music industry is in a lull and they are trying to place the blame in the obvious direction pirating.

Personally, I've neved downloaded one mp3, I appreciate the quality that comes off the Compact Disc versus the mp3. mp3's don't sound great on a revealing stereo.
Re:yes.... by jazzer · 2003-12-17 19:02 · Score: 1

For someone that loves music, DVD's seem like a waste of money for me. I'd much rather sit and listen to music anyday.
I can listen to music for years, movies, generally speaking, are only good for a couple viewings and then I'm bored of them. In a movie you dread knowing what's going to happen next, in music you anticipate it.. :)
Re:yes.... by jazzer · 2003-12-17 19:07 · Score: 1

I'd like to respond to #3 Canada's economy has been staying pretty steady, which is what the whole topic is about.
Re:yes.... by Trepalium · 2003-12-17 20:36 · Score: 1

I think the big problem in the past few years is the music companies have forgotten to diversify the variety of music they promote. They've gotten too hooked on the numbers game ClearChannel gives them, and start believing the only truth is in those numbers. While good music is still being made, the diversity that otherwise prevent you from hating those overplayed bands doesn't exist.
They're just victims of their own success. They promote a song to death, until everyone's sick of it, before moving onto another song. The potentially less popular bangs get pushed off, as the 'sure shots' get the promotion.

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 02:13 · Score: 0

What about the white stripes, or Stone Temple Pilots (as derivative as they are, they are good)... In 20 years people will be bitching, wishing that the bands were as good as the white stripes or STP.

In the 70's people were bitching because the Frank Sinatras and Frankie Avalons are gone.

It will always be this way. You grow up with music you love, and the popular culture swings in a different direction. It isn't better or worse, just different.

I have to admit, actual musicianship's heyday was from probably 1965-75 before and after is pretty anemic (from a pop and rock standpoint, blues, classical, and jazz have always, and continue to have the best musicians).

The songwriting, arrangement, and production quality (outside of technical "advances") hasn't changed much through the years since. There is still really bad pop and rock, and the occasional exceptional cut.
Re:yes.... by MurphyZero · 2003-12-18 12:32 · Score: 1

People are done replacing their old LP/cassette collections.
And not only that, but most of the artists I listen to put out greatest hits albums, so instead of buyin all X of their albums to listen to the 3-5 good songs on each album, I bought a single CD with 20 great songs, or for some bands, a double CD set with 30+ great songs.
Most current/recent artists area lucky to have 5 good songs, because as people have stated before:

They are style over substance
They market one or two songs to death, and only those songs were given any thought in the first place
Concerts are get their money first affairs
Your favorite theory here
And because compiliation CDs became a hit, you can wait a little longer, and get an album with 12 artists one good hit. Of course that means only 6-8 of them will be any good. Your mileage may vary depending on your age/taste. So instead of selling maybe 3-5 of the 12 artists' CDs, they manage 1-2 per CD buyer. But those who actually buy the CDs are happier because they are getting what they want. I've been burned enough that the only CDs I buy new are of artists who I have been pleased with their CDs before, and there's only a couple of those and most have stopped making music.

--
Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
Re:yes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 21:09 · Score: 0

The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. 80's music is far better than 90's music. Fuck that fucking grunge bullshit.

Great........ by vwjeff · 2003-12-16 14:55 · Score: 1, Funny

Knock me out now and wake me when this is all over. Thanks.

Hmm... by EvilSporkMan · 2003-12-16 14:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

So if you can download in Canada and you can download in the U.S., why don't the Canadians share American music for the U.S.ers and vice versa? Surely that wouldn't be too hard to rig up, if only by agreement...

--
-insert a witty something-

Re:Hmm... by Synesthesiatic · 2003-12-16 15:10 · Score: 1

So if you can download in Canada and you can download in the U.S., why don't the Canadians share American music for the U.S.ers and vice versa?
Pretty much all pop distributed in the states is distributed here too. With Canadian TV full of American shows, its only natural we'll be familiar with US music.
Therefore there's no escape.
Re:Hmm... by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-12-16 15:11 · Score: 5, Funny

>> Pretty much all pop distributed in the states is distributed here too.
I'm sorry. I didn't know you had it that bad up there.

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:Hmm... by RobinH · 2003-12-16 15:21 · Score: 4, Funny

>> Pretty much all pop distributed in the states is distributed here too.

I'm sorry. I didn't know you had it that bad up there.

It's gotten better since you took Celine Dion off our hands... can't thank you enough for that one!

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:22 · Score: 0

Think of how it would be if they DIDN'T have music from the U.S. The national suicide rate would be huge if all they had was Canadian music.
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:23 · Score: 0

Yeah, but you just can't get that cool Inuit music down here in the States.
Re:Hmm... by Geek+of+Tech · 2003-12-16 15:28 · Score: 1

No problem. Glad to help the global neighbors. Now if someone would consider taking some "artist" off our hands, I'm sure we could work out some kind of compensation....

--
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:28 · Score: 0

Section 80(1) of the Canadian Copyright Act allows copying. The catch is Section 80(2) which provides limitations, and the question arises whether the act of making the copy was done for "purposes" of distribution. The real question will be, what is distribution, and does leaving a copy on your hard drive constitute distribution? The MP3s in my shared folder are for me to listen to, and were not copied there for the purpose of "distribution". Allowing access to the internet does not strike me as "distribution" either, any more than leaving your door unlocked, thereby permitting a person to walk in and copy a CD would. "Distribution" is very unclear, and this could be a battle that CRIA loses.
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:38 · Score: 0

Its not quite that bad, I mean we don't have MTV...
We've got something like it, but nowhere near as bad. We, not quite as bad.
Re:Hmm... by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:38 · Score: 1

Erm... Dude, that may be, but let's not forget the good old Canadian Content laws that mandate anywhere from 15-65% of content must be Canadian on radio and TV in Canada. (Actually I think CBC is 85%. The norm is 35%.)
Re:Hmm... by cgreuter · 2003-12-16 23:23 · Score: 1

I'm sorry. I didn't know you had it that bad up there.
It's not quite that bad. For example, I still know almost nothing about Hillary Duff.
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 05:34 · Score: 0

Allowing access to the internet does not strike me as "distribution" either, any more than leaving your door unlocked, thereby permitting a person to walk in and copy a CD would.

Depends. What if you put a sign which said "free CD copying" on your door?
Re:Hmm... by log0 · 2003-12-18 22:00 · Score: 1

Very clever idea and I'd imagine it would be very easy to do (you could probably do it now with firewalls). All we need is a new version of an existing popular app that detects the country it is in and refuses all connections within that country*. It would appear like a regular node in the existing network.

The main problems would be increased international bandwidth use (which could increase ISP costs), slightly higher ping times (who cares) and more unavailable files appearing in the search results.

The drawbacks are minor (although it'd piss the ISPs off - hopefully it'll turn them against the **AA) and it would definitely perform better than Freenet.

I wouldn't be supprised though if the **AA started paying overseas companies to do the searching for them (whoops there's another IT job outsourced to India).

*Yes I mean all connections both up and down as downloading can be detected and is still illegal in many countries.

That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 14:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Er, wait, they are doing something I *don't* like this time? That's hardly fair.

Re:That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by Seek_1 · 2003-12-16 16:00 · Score: 3, Funny

Well you could just come to Canada and be a leech. That's still perfectly legal.
Re:That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:19 · Score: 0

Yeah, just remember to buy all the media before you go...
Re:That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:19 · Score: 0

And bring a Tivo with you ...
Re:That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by MKalus · 2003-12-17 04:18 · Score: 1

I wouldn't say just yet that this is bad. Maybe one of the people they try to sue takes it to court. If they do it might be very interresting.

Remember, there is no court ruling in the US that deems P2P file sharing (note, it's called sharing, not stealing) illegal either. People just never had the guts to "go all the way".

There are people who read the law you say you could claim that the upload HAS to happen while you download. If that's the case than it could deemed legal in Canada to share music.

Not all is lost (yet). Plus, it is pretty much legal (French) (Warning, PDF link) to download anyways.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.

Blame Canada by fmlug.org · 2003-12-16 14:57 · Score: 1

I dont think Blame Canadia will work for this one, the canadians maybe shouting Blame USA.

Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:01 · Score: 0

really? I think someone should listen to their Blame Canada mp3 again. If you don't have it, you know where to get it.
Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:34 · Score: 0

maybe its in the wreck of the world trade center.

(too soon?)
Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:33 · Score: 0

Absolutely, its the US fault.
There is no canadian record industry just like there isnt many industries left that arent american owned. (Canadian pot is the only I can think of.)
Look at the top 40 in Canada. Nothing. Nada....
Quebec is different since its 90% french speaking
but this country relies on the oldies like the Tragically Hip and Blue Rodeo who are getting long in the tooth and the usual Idol stupidity.

This country is one big US retail outlet and the decisions arent made here.
Were like Puerto Rico just with more snow and medicare.

zack
Re:Blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 01:31 · Score: 0

We normally blame the US for all our woes anyhow. Except taxes, taxes we blame on a large, slow, inefficent and horrbily corrupt government. But the flipside is free healthcare, to which the US steals most of our doctors but we dont mind.

it makes little difference by toddhunter · 2003-12-16 14:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

Without the uploaders, you will be hard pressed to find downloaders anyway.
What about this though, someone creates a virus that intentionally leaves a limited back-door into your system. This lets anyone log on, look at media files on your computer and download them.
Then you never made your files available for sharing, the downloader is liable for breaking into your computer, but it just happens that you don't want to lay any charges.
If only there was a way to get a virus onto a windows computer without people being seen to knowingly install it...

Re:it makes little difference by gl4ss · 2003-12-16 15:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

..actually you can already claim that with kazaa.

there's some progs that install on your computer without your consent that always turn the uploading on(i don't remember how exactly these programs spread, but iirc it was a bug in kazaa itself, which may or may not be close. also i suspect that people would leave such backdoored .exes on as well causing it.).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:it makes little difference by Goldfinger7400 · 2003-12-16 15:06 · Score: 0

This is precisely why I'll use a mac and not windows.
Re:it makes little difference by slash-tard · 2003-12-16 15:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well a back door is essentially the same thing.

But.. how can half of a 2 way process be illegal? It seems to me this is similiar to it being legal to buy something but illegal for someone to sell it to you. Im probably missing an obvious example of this but I cant think of any now.

I think lawyers do stuff like this on purpose to increase the demand for themselves.
Re:it makes little difference by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:18 · Score: 0

Unfortunately for the RIAA/CRIA, etc the value of downloaded music is easy to establish. I can buy a song at iTMS for $0.99. I can buy a CD at a store for $10-$20.
The canadian CRIA levies on media make posession of copied music legal, it doesn't allow you to provide an unlimited supply of copies.
Re:it makes little difference by MouseR · 2003-12-16 15:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

But.. how can half of a 2 way process be illegal?

Jurisprudence.

There's no way, unless videotaped or via some sort of audio record of your wrongdoings, to prove that you intentionally and wilfully acquired something illegal.

It is, however, your responsibility to ascertain that acquired merchandise is owned by the provider.

However, due to the previous item, you can not be liable for acquiring a product that was wrongfully acquired by the provider.

An example of this is buying a packaged CD or a pair of jeans at a flea market. You're buying it in good faith (aka, exchanging money for it) from a reseller wich assures your it's original, top-quality stuff.

Said CD might very well be a cheap duplicate (often the case) or contraband (counterfeited) brand pair of jeans.

The buyer can't be held responsible, but the seller is responsible for having resold something that was not legal.

If caught, the buyer would have to hand over the bought merchandise (usually to serve as evidence, then destroyed) and the seller would face criminal charges.

If, however, the buyer actually resells the stuff, he becomes as guilty as the original seller, for it is his duty to make sure, before reselling, that the merchandise was genuine.

This same process applies to P2P music.

The down-loader can not be held responsible for downloading an illegal song file wich he acquired from an up-loader. Said up-loader must make sure, before uploading the song, that he has the rights to do so. The down-loader can't be held responsible if the up-loader didn't have the rights, because he's not in a position to know (I mean, legally... but we all know that's crock).
Re:it makes little difference by GrimSean · 2003-12-16 15:38 · Score: 1

But.. how can half of a 2 way process be illegal? It seems to me this is similiar to it being legal to buy something but illegal for someone to sell it to you. Im probably missing an obvious example of this but I cant think of any now.

Here's one for you then - here in Canada we have laws that allow people to use Marijuana for medicinal purposes, but it's still illegal for them to buy it from the neighbourhood pot dealer. So that means if they are found with it in their possession, that's fine, but if they are found buying it, that's a fine.
I love my country, but sometimes our laws drive me nuts - I'm just glad that I keep my MP3s in a separate folder from the one that I share on Kazaa ("No Officer, I've taken steps to keep from uploading my digital music").

--
I don't need to be made to look evil. I can do that on my own. - Christopher Walken
Re:it makes little difference by rcpitt · 2003-12-16 16:21 · Score: 1

Note that there is one minor exception to this - taking counterfit stuff across a country's border.
Purchase a really good fake Rolex in Canada from your "friend" - wear it in good health and flash it in front of any cop you want; no problem. Take it across the US border and have it on your wrist when you hand over your passport - watch out; you might even lose your car - as well as the watch.
Same with a Guchi purse or whatever - the Customs and Excise people are specifically empowered to protect the trademarks and design patents of companies selling goods in their country from fakes coming in from other countries - no matter whether in a shipping container or on your body.

--
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
Re:it makes little difference by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:04 · Score: 0

God bless BBB for your uploading needs
Re:it makes little difference by teklob · 2003-12-16 18:37 · Score: 1

If only there was a way to get a virus onto a windows computer without people being seen to knowingly install it...
outlook express
Re:it makes little difference by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 05:36 · Score: 0

Then you never made your files available for sharing, the downloader is liable for breaking into your computer, but it just happens that you don't want to lay any charges.

Of course it doesn't matter because your crime is a crime against the state.

Difficulty by Quasi+Qubit · 2003-12-16 14:57 · Score: 0

Because downloading in and of itself is not illegal, how do they prepose to prove that I don't own a copy of what I am downloading?

Re:Difficulty by thebatlab · 2003-12-16 15:04 · Score: 1

They won't be going after you if you're downloading. They'll be going after you if you're sharing too much of what you downloaded. Which you in turn most likely had to obtain from someone uploading. So you indirectly may be putting people in a legally liable situation!!! haha.

I guess they want networks to become saturated with leechers. Then they can pick off the final people left sharing one by one.
Re:Difficulty by SirSlud · 2003-12-16 15:08 · Score: 1

It doesnt matter. Downloading is legal whether you own what you are downloading or not.

You can borrow CDs from friends and copy them. Its legal. You can't make copies of your own CDs and give them to friends.

--
"Old man yells at systemd"
Re:Difficulty by psychogentoo · 2003-12-16 15:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

They don't have to prove anything. You get sued, then they ask if you want to settle out of court or go through a lengthy trial process.
Its a lose-lose situation for the parties involved except for the lawyers and Celine Dion.

Dinosaur by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 14:59 · Score: 0

So in conclusion: Anything with "RIA" as part of it's initials is bad.

Re:Dinosaur by Chess_the_cat · 2003-12-16 15:09 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Anything other than Aria Giovanni I guess.

--
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1

Avril Levine: 1 million copy sold by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:00 · Score: 0

Yeah... remember the ads on canadian streets... Avril Levine CD 1 million copies sold?
Fans still buy stuff if they like it...
Argue this. Case rests.
The rest is just bullshit. But yeah... jail some 14 yrs old uploading MJ or whatever...

Re:Avril Levine: 1 million copy sold by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:10 · Score: 0

Wow, that's great!

Is she somehow related to Avril Lavigne?
Re:Avril Levine: 1 million copy sold by Chess_the_cat · 2003-12-16 15:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

No. They spell their names totally differently.

--
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1

live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by velkr0 · 2003-12-16 15:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are they hoping that they can scare me into buying music again. I used to buy cd's all the time, and i currently own over 330. But, buying cd's is simply a pain, since i lose them, they get punked and of course they collect dust on my cd rack...

MP3's on my iPod always stay nice and shiny, and follow me everywhere i go!!

Canada needs iTMS soon, because i still have a bit of cash in my budget for my favourite tunes!

Re:live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by larry+bagina · 2003-12-16 15:26 · Score: 1

2 hours ago, I went to Circuit City and bought Al Green/Greatest Hits. It was on sale for $8.99. Having listened through it, there's some good music on there, and I'm glad I bought it, but I wouldn't have bought it for at the list price ($13-20, depending on where you look). There's a LOT of music I would buy at a lower price. My music purchase dropped off in the past couple years because Amazon.com, CDNow.com, buy.com, etc. stopped offering nice discounts and raised music prices.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-16 15:39 · Score: 1

I totally agree; if every music CD was even $10, I'd buy a lot more than I do right now. $15 is too much (new CD in CAD$), $20 is way too freaking much (older CDs).

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Re:live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by Technician · 2003-12-16 17:27 · Score: 1

Hmm, 330 X $15.00 (aprox average) = almost 5 grand. Many college kids have to make the decision of either music or transportation. The music buying habit is an expensive addiction.
Most people would rather have an unlimited subscription to a large library rather than buying a few CD's.

Now a question for those over 30;

How often to you listen to music in your library over 5 years old. I bet most have some CD's you just never get around to listening to anymore. I know I have a few I haven't listened to for years. That's a lot of money tied up in dead inventory in the closet. Many over 30 quickly realise an investment in CD's is a trivial waste of money. I find myself shopping more often for used CD's of the good stuff instead of buying the latest promoted item that has only one good cut. It's because I know it will probably just collect dust later.

Much more valuable would be a subscription to a vast archive where I could download all I want. Unused stuff would be deleted to make room for new stuff. Heck, an auto-delete if not played in 5 years would be fine. I could keep my playlist up to date, have good variety, and regulary rotate my playlists. This is very hard to do with the current buy just a few CD's for a lot of money model. 330 CD's isn't really a big library of music. 5 grand for most people is a lot of money.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by los+furtive · 2003-12-16 17:32 · Score: 1

I'm with you. I used to buy two CDs a week, but when napster came out I was one of the first to sign on, and for a while had one of the most respectable jazz mp3 collections available, simply because I backed up all my music to MP3. I shared like crazy because I OWNED those CDs and felt no guilt in making them available online. Of course eventually those CDs gathered dust, so I sold them at the local shop.
At this point I haven't bought an album in nearly five years (yup!). To tell you the truth, I don't even care if its illegal...if they told me water would cost $40/month, and I had a glacier running through my back yard, what do you think I'd do? People can go their whole lives just buying used books or swapping them with their friends or borrowing them from libraries, why the hell wouldn't music be the same thing? At this point I download in spurts from time to time, and if things really got bad, I'd just go back to IRC, somehow it always seems to be flying under the radar.
As a final thought, and the last time I ever comment on this subject, even if the RIIA (or its Canadian equivalent) succeeded in clamping down, I really wouldn't care, I've got such a backlog of music (heck, I have >75 albums just in my 'recently downloaded' directory) that I'd be hard pressed to listen to it all anyways. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can play non stop music for the better portion of a year without repeating tracks.
Enjoy your music, and don't just share it with friends, listen to it with friends as well.

--
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Re:live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by CKW · 2003-12-17 07:30 · Score: 1

If they sue me, my first question to them over the phone will be:

"Do you want all my CDs back too, or shall I invite the press and burn them publicly? It's either/or - either I'm allowed to discover music on my own via p2p networks, or I burn all my CDs and never buy from your member companies again in my entire life, and I spend all my time playing video games, watching movies, composing my own damn free music, and promoting/distributing other people's free music. I do want half decent artists to be able to make a living at what they are doing, but I think your current system sucks. Take it or leave it."

Quick Primer by SirSlud · 2003-12-16 15:02 · Score: 5, Informative

In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.

It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers).

This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)

We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.

This is my udnerstanding of our system. Corrections are invited.

--
"Old man yells at systemd"

Re:Quick Primer by debrain · 2003-12-16 15:12 · Score: 4, Informative

We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.

The levy price did not go up; the actual prices stayed the same. You can read about it here

MP3 player's are now being taxed, which is new. The gist of the protection is that you may fundamentally circumvent copyright if you give away the original, and you are permitted to keep copies, from my understanding. So you may make a copy of a CD, keep the copy, and give away the original CD, and not have violated the rights of the copyright holder.

The essence of this, distinguished from "real" copyright violations, is that you can only give away the original once, and so you cannot mass produce the effect of that lost copyright. Or so my understanding goes ...
Re:Quick Primer by atommoore · 2003-12-16 15:12 · Score: 5, Informative

I believe you interpreted the ruling perfectly.

"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."

-- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision

Seems like sealand will be the one place to upload anything sooner or later.

--
You are not your blog
Re:Quick Primer by thebatlab · 2003-12-16 15:16 · Score: 1

Yup, that's pretty much the clear mud of it. And yes, the levies did just go up but not as much as everyone feared it may be.

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/s tory/ROC/20031212/2003-12-13T002411Z_01_N12402633_ RTRIDST_0_BUSINESS-MEDIA-CANADA-COPYRIGHT-COL
Re:Quick Primer by SonicBurst · 2003-12-16 15:37 · Score: 1

This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)

While I'm sure there are arguments that simply posting a file via p2p is not distributing, it is merely...shall we say...making available...I would argue that the uploader is NOT copying. The downloader is actually making the permanent copy (yes, I suppose that the uploader must send a copy of the bits out over the wire, yadda yadda, but the actual reciever puts the whole thing back together again into 1 coherent file). Perhaps that's a tight legal line, but the reciever really is where the copy is completed.

--

Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
Re:Quick Primer by peter_gzowski · 2003-12-16 15:48 · Score: 1

The levy on CD media actually stayed the same, and will remain the same through 2004 (link). Only mp3 players with non-removable storage media are charged. Removable storage devices, and also recordable DVDs, are exempt. I believe the act covers only music, not all content.

This uploading/downloading part is what I don't get. Where do they think the downloads come from? Under the analogy that downloading is the 'borrowing', wouldn't me sharing my files just be the 'allowing you to borrow', as opposed to the 'distribution'? It's not like I drag and drop my mp3 files onto your desktop. Anyway, the 'downloading legal, uploading illegal' is the position of the Copyright Board of Canada, not the Canadian legal system (yet).

--
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Re:Quick Primer by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 16:16 · Score: 1

You mean the "uploader" allows his computer to send a copy of the bits under the control of the downloader...

Not such a tight line, is it?
Re:Quick Primer by noone06 · 2003-12-16 16:46 · Score: 1

Almost entirly correct.
Music is subject to those provisions and thus the levy only goes to support music.
You are not entitled to make copies of other copywrited works (movies, software, etc) in the same way. See here for info:
Re:Quick Primer by JumperCable · 2003-12-16 17:22 · Score: 1

It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers).

This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)

If this is true & defensable, let's try this approach:
- Have shared music collection between friends via some software program. - The software program is responsable for streaming the audio to your friends receiver (this makes resonable assurances that copies are not made [anything can be hacked but that is not our intention]). - Since people have limited bandwidth and varying interests, they will naturally limit the number of friends they have that can use this service (probably to people offering similar bandwidths and to people who keep the labels on their record collections clean and to people who have good music he/she would enjoy listening to). - Since it is not available to the internet community as a whole, they should not considered broadcasters.
Re:Quick Primer by jellybear · 2003-12-16 17:32 · Score: 1

What every single discussion of this issue has neglected to consider is that it is possible for you to borrow your friend's CD without having physically having it in your possession. For instance you could get his permission to use his CD, and then send someone to go pick it up for you. Or, you could borrow his CD AND his computer and then use his computer and broadband connection to send the contents of the CD to yourself. Thus, you are copying something for yourself. Who is uploading? Is it you or your friend? Stripped of all the legal construction, really it is the computer that is uploading, under instructions of a program, most likely written by a 3rd party, and in response to a query or request from you, the downloader. In order to assign blame and responsibility, however, the law has to attribute the actions of the computer to someone. The question then becomes: who is in charge of the computer as it uploads a packet?

Arguments could be made that, unless you have complete control over a computer, you are not really borrowing it. On the other hand, one could also argue that you are borrowing timeslices on his computer and that the uploaded packets are occurring during the timeslices in which you have control of his CPU.

A P2P user could argue that, were it not for commands sent by the downloader, the P2P program would not have sent any packets upstream. Thus, the downloader is instructing and, in effect, controlling the computer insofar as it is uploading a file.

To stretch things a bit, you could make an analogy with CDs. If you take the position that a person is responsible for everything done by an object that they own, then by lending your CD to someone else, you would be equally guilty of "copying", for the following reason: when your friend puts the CD into a player, a laser strikes the surface of the CD. The CD causes the light to be reflected in a certain way such that the light contains a copy of the data on the CD. So the CD is engaged in copying. Since you are the owner of the CD, you are guilty of copying. That's a bit of a strawman, but that's essentially the position we want to attack.

We want to say that a computer that is owned by you and is used to send a file to another computer does not necessarily make you guilty of copying if the computer is being borrowed by the person to whom the data is being sent.
Re:Quick Primer by dgerman · 2003-12-16 17:54 · Score: 1

>In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD,
>movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.

The Decision by the board is interesting. It legitimizes private copying as long as 2 conditions are met:

* the copy must be made for private use (as defined in section 80 of the Copyright Act)

* it must be made into "an audio recording medium" (as defined in section 79... of the Copyright Act).

I have read the Board Decision, and it is clear that it allows people private copying onto CD-R and CD-RWs and into Mp3 players. But it does not say anything about any other kind of medium.

It also seems to pertain only to audio.

In other words, there seem to be loopholes (maybe on purpose) that explicitely state that this ruling applies only to Music and to copies made into media that pays a levy.

For example, see the following paragraph (page 21 of the ruling):

However, an audio recording medium to
which no tariff applies because the Board has
decided that such a medium is not of a kind
ordinarily used by individuals for recording
music is, in the Board' s opinion, removed
from the ambit of the exemption. For
instance, in Private Copying I, the Board
decided that audiocassettes of less than 40
minutes do not attract a levy. Considering the
wording of section 80, this means that
copying music onto such cassettes infringes
copyright. It is, however, for the courts of
civil jurisdiction to ultimately determine
whether or not there is an infringement of
copyright for private copies made onto a
specific medium, unless the legislator
intervenes.

It pertains to tapes of less than 40 minutes, that do not pay levy.

If I understand this sentence correctly (IANAL), this means I can be sued for infridgement if I use a hard disk, for example!
Re:Quick Primer by srw · 2003-12-16 18:06 · Score: 1

> In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc)
> Corrections are invited.

Almost. Section 80 of the Canadian copyright act only applies to musical recordings. It doesn't seem to apply to movies, etc. (Unless there's another section that I haven't discovered.)

ttyl
srw
Re:Quick Primer by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:25 · Score: 0

* This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)&

'This downloading is legal stuff' is probably still a tentative decision ?by the copyright folks? and not written in stone. It'll be challenged, and probably soon. Until they impose fees on ISPs to offset the losses incurred due to P2P sharing, I wouldn't go near the p2p programs.
Re:Quick Primer by bitspotter · 2003-12-16 18:31 · Score: 1

Havenco and Sealand have long since parted ways
Re:Quick Primer by bitspotter · 2003-12-16 18:37 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight; If I use Kazaa to copy music for others, it's infringing, but if I use Kazaa to let others copy music for themselves, it's legal, even though they haven't bought a license to it?

How do you make the differencce clear?
Re:Quick Primer by beakerMeep · 2003-12-16 19:15 · Score: 1

>> The essence of this, distinguished from "real" copyright violations, is that you can only give away the original once, and so you cannot mass produce the effect of that lost copyright. Or so my understanding goes ...
so if you had kaza running but nobody grabbed the same song from you more than once wouldn't that fit within this qualifier?

--
meep
Re:Quick Primer by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 20:04 · Score: 1

They've already made it very clear that setting up your computer to make a copy of a CD, up to and including moving the mouse over the "burn" button, and then allowing someone else to hit copy is completely legal for both parties. I fail to see how doing it over the internet would make it any less so.

However, there is a concern for people that share copied files on P2P networks, namely that if they're being shared to the public, they're no longer just for "personal use", and as such each copy you share was one you weren't allowed to make. As such, you can be sued for one count of infringment for each song you make avaliable to the public.

Hardly seems a worthwhile amount to me. Say 5000 songs. Retail value is what? At most $1.50 a song when bought on CD? So I can't see how they could sue for more than $7500, which is probably less than they pay their lawyers. They'd have to go for people with REALLY big collections for it to be worthwhile.

Besides, if you really want to get around this, as someone else stated, there's no restrictions on use of originals. Sharing a real CD is legal.
Re:Quick Primer by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 20:08 · Score: 1

Easy, Kazaa doesn't let you SEND files to others. :P It only allows them to ask your computer (not you) FOR them.

Sending copied music is illegal, allowing it to be sent from your computer isn't. Mind you, making a copy to be shared, is. Copies are only allowed for personal use remember. But that has nothing to do with how many (if any) people get that copy. One infringment for one shared song. Easy math. :)

And unfortunately for the CRIA, math that results in some pretty small numbers... :)
Re:Quick Primer by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 20:24 · Score: 1

They also stated in their most recent rulings that Hard Drives are currently considered a permissible "audio recording medium" despite them not having any levies.
Re:Quick Primer by jred · 2003-12-16 20:26 · Score: 1

I was thinking that maybe you could lock the source file during download. That would be similar to someone borrowing your cd, you no longer have access to it. Now, they can sure keep a copy after it's downloaded, but they could just as easily copy your cd. Then it would be more like loaning the music rather than distributing it.

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Re:Quick Primer by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 20:27 · Score: 1

We have a law that states making copies onto levied media (and as of the most recent statement, Hard Drives for the time being) for personal use is completely legal. Source of and systems used to create this copy are not discussed, and as such are irrelevent.

If you make a copy of a musical act for your own personal use, it is legal.

Hell, you can steal a computer, steal a CD, steal a CD-R, copy the CD onto the CD-R, and still be legally in the clear as far as copyright law goes. You'd go to jail for 3 counts of theft, and your copy will be confiscated for being on stolen goods, but it would still be a legal copy.
Re:Quick Primer by jazman · 2003-12-16 22:49 · Score: 1

It's legal to make a copy for your own use, and listen to that copy. So if it's also legal to lend out original media, then it's completely legal to pass around the original to several people, all who may or may not make their own copies.

So how about a software equivalent? Add a flag that modifies a music file to say it's been borrowed by someone to listen to (and perhaps copy, but that's not your problem). This doesn't stop you listening to it because you've made a copy for your own use and you're lending out the "original" file, which is disabled when you upload it to someone (this also means there's no point in cracking this software). The flag also locks out uploading, so you can only upload to one person at a time, therefore you're neither distributing nor copying.

Possible flaw in this: it's legal to borrow an original medium of course, but if it is copied for personal use and the original locked away somewhere safe - offsite backup for instance - is it legal to lend your working copy to a friend? If not, this won't work.
Re:Quick Primer by FireFury03 · 2003-12-17 00:31 · Score: 1

Does that mean that if you only upload music you don't own then you aren't breaking the law? i.e. download from someone (legal) upload the track to someone else (also legal since you didn't own it originally).

Remember that the people sharing music they own are just a small proportion of people sharing.

Personally, I download the odd track, but if I want more than about 1 track on an album then I buy the album instead (I often download the whole album first to see what it's like, but if I like it I _will_ buy it).

Recently I downloaded the whole of Evanescence's Origin album and several of their demo tracks - I am very thankful for P2P because these tracks are not available elsewhere (Origin is a deleted album that wasn't widely distributed to start with).

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:Quick Primer by SonicBurst · 2003-12-17 02:41 · Score: 1

It's tighter than you think. That's no different than your friend allowing you to borrow his CD to make a copy, which is legal under Canadian law. Also, I believe that with most P2P software, at no time is a full copy ever present on the uploader. Sure, bits and pieces of a time are, but once those pieces are sent across the wire, the uploader dumps those copies and gets the next. Maybe P2P apps buffer a whole file in memory, but I doubt it, especially with 650 MB ISOs being transferred. Since there is no full copy, the law isn't violated.

--

Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
Re:Quick Primer by birdman17 · 2003-12-17 03:36 · Score: 1
The thing that gets me about the media levy we have here in Canada is that although we get the right to legally copy copyrighted music in exchange for the levy (which is an improvement over the more usual practice of having our rights gradually and unilaterally removed), none of the levy goes to benefit the artists. This is not news for people familiar with RIAA/CRIA/etc. However, not only does the levy not go to benefit the artists, it does not go to benefit the CRIA member companies either, who might have some legitimate (if immoral) claim to it. Nor does it go to benefit the CRIA itself, the umbrella organization, which has an even more tenuous claim on the proceeds. No, all of the levy is being collected AND SPENT by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, an organization formed solely to collect and distribute the levy. It is spending the ENTIRE take on its own salary, administrative, advertising, and related expenses. It forecasts that it will continue to spend all of its income on "overhead" for at least the next few years. It does not promise to ever actually pay anything to artists or their recording companies. It does not publish any financial plan to reduce its overhead to the point that it can start to execute its mission.
CPCC Business Plan:
1. Enact laws to skim money from sales of blank media.
2. Collect money.
3. Profit!
There isn't even a ??? step. It's a great business plan.
And of course with this arrangement, it is not at all easy to opt out of the government/CRIA scheme - all blank media sold in Canada have this levy applied. The only alternative we have is to import blank media from other countries and "forget" to pay the levy at import time. Unfortunately it is not obvious that this is a cheaper solution due to shipping, duty, exchange, and other fees related to buying foreign products.
Re:Quick Primer by javatips · 2003-12-17 03:46 · Score: 1

Unless you bough a MP3 encoded file, what you are making availlable is already a copy of the original, not the actual original. So if you allow upload of MP3s then you are in fact distributing a copy of the musical work which is illegal.
Re:Quick Primer by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 04:16 · Score: 0

In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.

It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers).

This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)

I believe your interpretation of the law is correct, but I don't think that this makes uploading illegal in Canada. When someone downloads a file from a P2P system, only one copy is made, so how can both the downloader and uploader be copying? I would say that the downloader is copying and the uploader is simply providing content to be copied. After all, it is the downloader that initiates the request to copy a file.

This, to me, is the same as lending a CD to someone who is going to copy it, and thus, should be perfectly legal under Canadian copyright law.
Re:Quick Primer by anthony_dipierro · 2003-12-17 05:51 · Score: 1

yes, I suppose that the uploader must send a copy of the bits out over the wire, yadda yadda, but the actual reciever puts the whole thing back together again into 1 coherent file

I wouldn't even say that. The receiver is the one doing all the copying. He just happens to be using someone else's computer to do so.

If a friend allows me to go onto his computer and copy files onto my iPod, how can you say the friend is doing the copying? Going back to the original statement, "In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use." So if I go into a friend's house, and copy the files, it should be legal, right? And this is simply the electronic equivalent of that.
Re:Quick Primer by SonicBurst · 2003-12-17 06:05 · Score: 1

I agree with you 100%. I just put that in there as a small concession to appease/address those who do not our view.

--

Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
Re:Quick Primer by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-17 06:12 · Score: 1

Of course, all that is resolved with the realization that there is no uploading at all with P2P. Everything is hosted and downloaded.

If it was FTP instead, then you could upload by using the put command.

Don't play fast and loose with the subject performing the action or the next free gift a store gives you will get you arrested for shoplifting.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?

Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music by MichaelCrawford · 2003-12-16 15:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

From Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads:

You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America or arrested by the FBI if you download legal music. Many independent and unsigned musicians offer downloads of their music in hopes of attracting more fans. Here's some music from my friends The Divine Maggees, Oliver Brown and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL.

If everyone started downloading legal music instead of violating copyright with the file sharing programs, we would make short work of the RIAA, because people would start buying CDs directly from the artists and seeing their shows instead of enriching the major labels by buying CDs from the bands the labels have chosen for us to listen to. The RIAA would also have no cause to complain - these music downloads do not infringe copyright because the artists give you permission to download them.

Besides giving you lots of links to legal downloads, the article goes on to discuss how you can change the law to make p2p filesharing of proprietary files legal. I think that could happen if I could get all sixty million US file traders to read the article in time for the November 2004 elections. So far the article is getting read by about 500 people a day, but it needs to be read a couple of orders of magnitude more often between now and November if it's going to effect the election. Please read What You Can Do To Help.

Please copy and distribute this article. It has a Creative Commons license.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

its ok by the_2nd_coming · 2003-12-16 15:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Canadian Supreme Court will make up some law that does not exist so that the CRIA can get paid.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Re:its ok by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:28 · Score: 0

Bravo!!!

You must live in Alberta.

A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada? by Vic+Metcalfe · 2003-12-16 15:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

If I wrote a program that allowed users to put a CD into their CD-ROM drive and allow other users to rip a copy of that CD over the Internet, would that be legal? It looks to me like it might be.

I'm very very tempted to write such a program. We pay the levy anyway, might as well take full advantage of it. I just don't want to loose my house, business, etc when I get sued.

How can you be so fscking self-righteous? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:07 · Score: 0

How can people claim that they stopped buying music "Back when music didn't suck" and now it is like... almost their god-given right to commit copyright infringement?

I sat in class and listened to some guy complain how only one song on an album is good and that the rest is filler. So you know...its OKAY to copy it because, afterall, its mostly filler.

Look, despite what you think its the ARTISTS material. If they want an "all or none" sort of product then so be it. But who are you to come along and say "nope, sorry too bad I am going to commit copyright infringement because I don't LIKE some songs". ITS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE. Don't want all the songs? Then DON'T BUY THE CD but DON'T COPY IT EITHER.

People are so damn selfish and think the world owes them and Slashdot is not immune from this.

Re:How can you be so fscking self-righteous? by SirSlud · 2003-12-16 15:10 · Score: 1

> People are so damn selfish

Well, you mean, everybody is selfish except the people who profit from selling music, right?

--
"Old man yells at systemd"
Re:How can you be so fscking self-righteous? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:25 · Score: 0

blah blah blah... get off the soapbox, preacher.
Re:How can you be so fscking self-righteous? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:00 · Score: 0

"People are so damn selfish and think the world owes them "

oh like um metalica? or the riaa? or or...

sco?

Should taxpayers pay for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

When my car is stolen, when my house is broken into the police says "sorry, no resources" to catch them...
Should taxpayers really pay police, FBI, etc. for playing collection agent for the RIA?

Re:Should taxpayers pay for this? by cfuse · 2003-12-16 16:10 · Score: 2, Funny

When my car is stolen, when my house is broken into the police says "sorry, no resources" to catch them... Should taxpayers really pay police, FBI, etc. for playing collection agent for the RIA?
Ha! You only voted to get your preferred political candidate into office. They paid. Guess who gets the silver service.
Re:Should taxpayers pay for this? by Feztaa · 2003-12-20 21:12 · Score: 1

Well, police don't actually enforce the RIAA's lawsuits (being a civil and not a criminal matter), but they do tend to eat up the court's time...

so let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:08 · Score: 0

downloading is legal, and uploading is not?

well that's fine with me... i will just continue to download mp3s from europe and refuse to share my files!

Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, ste by grmb1 · 2003-12-16 15:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

BTW, in Russia downloading music is too expensive. Average home broadband bandwidth is around 0.1$/MB. However pirated CDs full of MP3s cost about 2$ and are on sale everywhere - flea market, regular shops (govt. doesn't give a fuck). The choice of MP3s is amazing - rarities, bootlegs, full discographies, etc....

So, USA people, welcome to Russia!

Hmm...could be a good idea for business... "Fuck RIAA, buy our exclusive 'Russia CD-Tour'.".

--
-- grmbl woz heer

Fair enough... by rokzy · 2003-12-16 15:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

...IF THEY GET RID OF THE LEVY

I thought the justification for the levy was to legitimise downloading mp3s? If they now want to get rid of that "service", where's the justification for the levy? Maybe they're trying to pull another scam like when CDs were new;

1980s
1. raise prices because of set-up costs
2. forget to lower after making money back
3. profit

2000s
1. raise prices because of mp3 traders
2. forget to lower after putting traders in jail
3. profit

Re:Fair enough... by JFMulder · 2003-12-16 15:27 · Score: 1

thought the justification for the levy was to legitimise downloading mp3s?
Did't you READ the post?
UPLOADING is illegal, not downloading. Seems awfully fair to me.
Re:Fair enough... by rokzy · 2003-12-16 15:31 · Score: 1

yes of course, but it's hardly fair to say "we'll assume you're downloading songs so you have to pay a tax", when they're now going to sue traders and so theoretically there will be no songs to download.
Re:Fair enough... by JFMulder · 2003-12-16 15:42 · Score: 1

Well, we all know that we'll be able to download songs for a long time anyway so I don't find it very wrong to put a levy on the media.

I agree that it's bad that legitimate users have to pay too, but face it, we're always paying for the ones who don't whether it's taxes or a product. If people were honest when they did their taxes, the taxing rate would be lower. It's a wonder why we keep being honest, we're the ones who get fucked everytime.
Re:Fair enough... by enigma48 · 2003-12-16 17:22 · Score: 1

Again, this announcement has nothing to do with people downloading songs. This is legal; police will NOT be showing up at your door and you will not be sued. I can download a billion songs and NOT pay a penny of any levy NOR will I get charged with a crime.

Uploaders though are distributing something of value for free, without have any right or permission to do so.

If you disagree with the idea of copyright, fine. Attack the law. But complaining that they're actually enforcing it is pretty weak.
Re:Fair enough... by rokzy · 2003-12-16 17:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm fine with copyright and them enforcing it. it's the levy that I disagree with. but it at least made sense under the assumption that people are free to download songs. although people are still legally allowed to download them, downloading is dependent upon there being someone uploading them, which is now being attacked.

now that they are active pursuing uploaders, demanding a levy seems even more ridiculous than before. imagine that they are successful and no one uploads any more and downloads stop, how can the levy be justified?

it would be like the government deciding that they should collect tax on sales of drugs while simultaneously prosecting the people selling the drugs.

you can't have your cake and eat it.
Re:Fair enough... by myrdred · 2003-12-16 18:21 · Score: 1

You must be new here.

You are supposed to leave the second step out.
Re:Fair enough... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 05:39 · Score: 0

it would be like the government deciding that they should collect tax on sales of drugs while simultaneously prosecting the people selling the drugs.

Umm, they do that. There's no exception from sales tax for drugs.
Re:Fair enough... by Fizyx · 2003-12-17 09:15 · Score: 1

They have been collecting it for years, and keep trying to increase the amount of levy, and extending, such as charging ISPs, and even planning to charge it on "technologies not yet invented". But according to a CBC radio program last weekend, NO MONEY COLLECTED HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN TO ANY ARTIST to compensate them for their "loss". They have never gotten around to that part of the plan, I guess it isn't a priority.
Yes, the levy is simply a cash-grab.
Re:Fair enough... by djtack · 2003-12-17 09:26 · Score: 1

it would be like the government deciding that they should collect tax on sales of drugs while simultaneously prosecting the people selling the drugs.

Buy your drug tax stamps here.

Installing Virus Without People Knowing... by CHaN_316 · 2003-12-16 15:11 · Score: 1

Easy.... just make some executable that claims to be something dumb like a free screensaver or something like that. Put a 100 page end user licence agreement (EULA), and when the user hits accept... virus installed. It's called Malware :D I'm sure most people that use Kazaa don't read the EULA and knowingly accept the spyware and adware that it installs.... (well, at least initially when Kazaa came out)

--
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix

But is it uploading??? by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 15:12 · Score: 1

Whos's to say that me allowing my computer to be controlled by someone else over the internet to make a copy of the music for their personal use is me uploading though???

After all, they made it pretty clear that me helping someone else burn a CD on my computer is perfectly legal for all parties involved.

I guess where it might fall afoul is that if I intentionally made the copy avaliable to the public, then it is no longer a copy for personal use, and as such the copy I made is then infringing.

So I think these cases will have to hang on them being able to prove that the "uploader" did in fact make the copy for non-personal use. IE: show intent.

Sounds like they might have their work cut out for them. But then, as always, IANAL.

In the Canadian courts, I also have to wonder if their rediculous calculations for lost profits would actually hold up. If the downloaders are not guilty, and I'm not guilty of performing their copies, then I'm only left of being guilty of one infraction per shared song.. Not a large sum of money..

Re:But is it uploading??? by rokzy · 2003-12-16 15:22 · Score: 1

perhaps a p2p program that allowed asigning a password to a folder would be enough?

"friends" who have the password are then simply "borrowing" the mp3s, anyone else accessing them is "hacking" your computer, hence the "uploader" is legally safe?

(sorry about potentially excessive "..."'s)
Re:But is it uploading??? by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 16:19 · Score: 1

Making it avaliable to your friend(s) is more for "personal use" than making it avaliable to the public, how exactly?
Re:But is it uploading??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 22:05 · Score: 0

So I think these cases will have to hang on them being able to prove that the "uploader" did in fact make the copy for non-personal use

As far as I can tell, once the levy has been paid, personal use doesn't figure at all. You've paid for full rights.
Re:But is it uploading??? by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-17 07:12 · Score: 1

uhhhh. nope, read the law again...

What about this... by spiritraveller · 2003-12-16 15:13 · Score: 1

After you install the virus on my computer, I call the FBI (or its Canadian equivalent), and the jack-booted thugs break down your door and throw your ass in the pen.

Assuming that people will be okay with this is very far from a safe bet.

Re:What about this... by dattaway · 2003-12-17 01:04 · Score: 1

The only problem with catching someone installing a virus is that it only has to be released onto one host. From there it replicates anonymously to the point of saturation. Tracing it back to the source is like tracing a molecule of air through the atmosphere over the years.

The only way a person can get caught is to shoot of their mouth in IRC forums. As seasons change, people can get very social. From that point, they feel compelled to show some proof of the exploit, and the case unfolds as friends of freinds met the guenuine Jesse James of the internet. At that point its too late to cover the tracks of confession, since too many verifyable tracks of information have been leaked. A search warrant gets executed quickly with guns drawn and the rest is history.

P2P by Decameron81 · 2003-12-16 15:14 · Score: 1

They see p2p networks as a cause, I see p2p networks as a result of their mistakes.

Diego Rey

--
diegoT

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:14 · Score: 0

In Soviet Russia....>Fill in your bit here please

Identity by Synesthesiatic · 2003-12-16 15:16 · Score: 1

It's all well and good that they're threatening, but I'm not convinced this could pan out here. Without a DMCA-equivalent, it would be very difficult to force ISPs to reveal their customers' identities.

I AM CANADIAN by dolo666 · 2003-12-16 15:18 · Score: 1

"P2P downloading is legal under Canadian law."
I knew I was Canadian for a reason! Time to go download Photoshop and all the mp3s I want. And in other news, I'm getting medicinal marijuana for my sleep apnea. I'm going to be happy as a pig in shit! I might even *think* I'm a pig in shit.

Re:I AM CANADIAN by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:00 · Score: 0

Since when is Photoshop music?
Re:I AM CANADIAN by 0xA · 2003-12-16 20:08 · Score: 1

And in other news, I'm getting medicinal marijuana for my sleep apnea.
I was thinking to myself, he can't be serious about this but I googled it and I will be damned. I have apnea trouble myself, I think I might try this.
Thanks.
Re:I AM CANADIAN by arock99 · 2003-12-17 01:03 · Score: 0

I think this refers to music only, downloading Photoshop would still prove illegal under canadian law.

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by velkr0 · 2003-12-16 15:18 · Score: 1

that's a good idea... sounds legal to me.. since everyone would be making their own personal copy from the original medium....

yes....1% morality. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:19 · Score: 0

"....because cd sales drops have nothing to do with things like slow economies, declining quality in music, overpriced cds..... "

That's fine, as long as "illegal downloading" isn't tacked onto that list.

Wait a damn minute.... by TheWhaleShark · 2003-12-16 15:19 · Score: 2, Funny

So...*I* can't copy MY media that *I* legally purchased, but I CAN copy YOUR media that *I* did NOT legally purchase?

My head hurts just thinking about that.

--
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)

Re:Wait a damn minute.... by wes33 · 2003-12-16 15:24 · Score: 1

read the post - you can copy your own stuff, but you can't then give away the copies ... (but you can give away the original - once)
Re:Wait a damn minute.... by TC+(WC) · 2003-12-16 15:47 · Score: 1

Unless, of course, you're some sort of magical being that is able to give away the original while still retaining it, allowing you to give it away multiple times without having it given back to you.
Re:Wait a damn minute.... by pi+radians · 2003-12-16 17:07 · Score: 1

No. There are very strict laws about magical beings in Canada.

--

sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Re:Wait a damn minute.... by NaugaHunter · 2003-12-16 18:16 · Score: 1

My head hurts just thinking about that.

Maybe your tuke is too tight, eh?

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.

Voice Your Opinion! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:22 · Score: 0

Brian Robertson's email address is: brobertson@cria.ca

Let them know what's on your mind, but be polite!

mod parent up by dolo666 · 2003-12-16 15:23 · Score: 1

"If I wrote a program that allowed users to put a CD into their CD-ROM drive and allow other users to rip a copy of that CD over the Internet, would that be legal? It looks to me like it might be."

You are my HERO. Let me know if you want some help or a PHP coder/scriptor/dbguy.

Re:mod parent up by herrvinny · 2003-12-16 15:46 · Score: 1

I'm an American, but consider me to be at your service if you need Java or any website help. Hope this scheme is legal in Canada though....

Who bought a Brian Adams CD? by Eberlin · 2003-12-16 15:23 · Score: 1

Come on, folks, we have to come together and save Brian Adams' career -- he's losing Canadian money because we're downl...um, uploading his high quality, well-thought-out, lyrically astounding, musically amazing records instead of purchasing them for the more-than-fair price they are being sold for.

Seriously, though, if you want to play this game well, someone should make a truly anonymous P2P network. That's where the arms race is. Until then, we've got to weather these storms and face the consequences for distributing illegally copyrighted material.

Re:Who bought a Brian Adams CD? by NSash · 2003-12-16 16:22 · Score: 1

Seriously, though, if you want to play this game well, someone should make a truly anonymous P2P network.

Someone already did. It's called Freenet.

music should be freely shared. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:25 · Score: 0

In days of yore, musicians made money by putting on shows, performing at the shows, etc.

The idea of a peice of media containing a representation of that music, and sold peicewise, with the seller retaining a variety of rights regarding the various permissible destinations of that information, is relatively new.

information wants to be free, creating and enforcing draconian laws in lands (supposedly) based on freedom and democracy is not going to win musicians, publishers or producers any brownie points.

in other words the paradigm has shifted. CDROMs of wave files is just not the way to sell music anymore. get over it.

ultimately music, software, etc...anything that can be pushed over the net...will be free. accepting this and moving to promote live shows, pay-per-view streaming worldwide, etc. is the proper choice.

Re:music should be freely shared. by cfuse · 2003-12-16 16:16 · Score: 2, Funny

In days of yore, musicians made money by putting on shows, performing at the shows, etc.
Now we get Christina Aguilera dressed like a cheap street whore working her poochie on MTV on tape loop - ever get the feeling that the human race is regressing.

Another wonderful idea. by rice_burners_suck · 2003-12-16 15:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey, let's sue our fans!! What shall we do next?! Hey, I have another great idea: Every time someone buys blank CD media, they are immediately arrested and imprisoned for a period not less than 20 years in a maximum security prison for each blank CD, alongside murderers and rapists, whose crimes are certainly lesser than that of music piracy. After the 20 year per blank CD period, the person is released from prison and allowed to take their blank CD(s).

This law would ignore the fact that blank CDs are used for mostly legitimate reasons, because piracy, being worse than murder or rape, should be handled under a no-fucking-around policy. And all books should be burned. And all people whose skin is not within 0.0000000000001% tolerance of a specific shade should be hung.

Re:Another wonderful idea. by BitchAss · 2003-12-17 06:23 · Score: 1

"...You take both pills, you wake up in your bed and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

That's a *great* sig!

--
Like sex? Read and write about it! Indecent Blogging

Subpeonas by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

They won't be able to go after as many file swappers (per capita) as they have in the U.S. because Canadian law does not allow you to subpeona their ISPs without a warrant signed by a judge. We have no DMCA yet. Also, there is also no legal precedent a la RIAA vs Verizon to get the names of file swappers from ISPs.

How does the Canadian RIAA plan to track down these uploaders without names, addresses and phone numbers from ISPs?

Of course, once we sign on to the FTAA, we will be forced to ratify it and adopt the insane IP provisions of that "free trade" agreement, including jail terms for file swappers, making open source software outright illegal, and allowing corporations to copyright everything except 12 distinct processes (ex calendars). I'm really looking forward to the human genome being copyrighted and having to pay licensing fees for my very existance.

I can't believe it! I'm *actually* planning on voting NDP in the next federal election, despite the fact that I'm a small "c" conservative. That would have been unthinkable for me as recently as two years ago. This fact that our government is whoreing us to virtually criminal organizations like the RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft makes me sick to my stomach.

Re:Subpeonas by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 22:14 · Score: 0

I'm *actually* planning on voting NDP in the next federal election

When I was young my dad observed that, while the NDP had some good ideas, you only wanted to vote them in every 20 years or so because they were such f***ups. Now we're stuck voting NDP because the Liberal Credit party are the f***ups.
Re:Subpeonas by RickHunter · 2003-12-17 04:12 · Score: 1

I can't believe it! I'm *actually* planning on voting NDP in the next federal election, despite the fact that I'm a small "c" conservative.

Ditto. I voted Alliance last time, because they looked like they had some good policies. Now I'm probably voting NDP, just because I don't want the same corporate wellfare loaded into our criminal code as the Bush administration's been pushing the past four years stateside. I want a government that'll stand up for my rights, especially if Bush gets another four years.
Re:Subpeonas by MKalus · 2003-12-17 04:22 · Score: 1

How does the Canadian RIAA plan to track down these uploaders without names, addresses and phone numbers from ISPs?

Unfortunatly they comply on their own:

WEB FIRMS TO NAME PIRATES

Robert Thompson, The Financial Post, 12/17/03

Three of Canada's largest Internet service providers said yesterday they will co-operate in identifying those accused of violating copyrights, as the Canadian Recording Industry Association prepares to launch lawsuits against digital music swappers.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association plans to launch lawsuits against Internet users that upload or share music files using peer-to-peer software. The lawsuits are expected in early 2004. CRIA says Internet file-sharing of music has caused sales of compact discs in Canada to fall by $450-million, or 23%, since 1999. Those ensnared by CRIA lawsuits could face fines of up to $1-million if the group successfully pursues criminal charges.

While CRIA, which represents Canada's music recording labels, can track users who share music on peer-to-peer networks, the association is only able to secure an Internet protocol address. An IP address identifies a computer connected to the Internet. However, CRIA will have to ask Canadian Internet service providers for personal information relating to the IP addresses to identify those it feels have violated copyrights.

To obtain personal information from Internet service providers, CRIA will have to turn to Canada's court system, according to Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. "It could be a difficult and lengthy process," said Mr. Geist, noting it might take a few months to obtain a court order and the information from ISPs.

However, yesterday, three of Canada's largest ISPs -- Telus Corp., Bell Canada and Rogers Cable -- said they would turn over personal information on their subscribers if presented with a court order.

"If they have a valid court order, our policy is to co-operate," said Taanta Gupta, a Rogers' spokeswoman.

In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act allowed the Recording Industry Association of America to send subpoenas to ISPs to obtain personal details of subscribers. Several U.S. ISPs fought the subpoenas, but eventually turned over the requested information.

Mr. Geist said some ISPs may decide to fight a court order obtained by CRIA. "It is possible that an ISP will challenge CRIA on this, but at the end of the day, I think [CRIA] will likely get their information," he said.

As the threat of lawsuits in Canada looms, many music swappers will wonder if they could be caught in the lawsuits. If CRIA follows the pattern set by the RIAA in the U.S., it may have already identified users it intends to sue. For many months, CRIA said it has had staff monitoring file shares using "Web crawlers" that piggyback on top of peer-to-peer software such as Kazaa and provides details of the users' activities. CRIA is also able to use the technology to gain access to a user's Internet protocol address, the key identifier of people on the Internet.

The threat of huge fines may make headlines, but Andrew Currier, an intellectual property lawyer at Torys in Toronto, said CRIA may use small claims courts in Canada to pursue civil actions. In Ontario, decisions in small claims court must be less than $10,000. Mr. Currier said criminal cases could also be launched.

"It would take a lot of effort to fight one of these lawsuits," said Mr. Currier. "It is kind of like a gorilla versus a mouse." However, Mr. Currier said it is possible a lawyer might take one of the uploading cases as a challenge to the Canadian Copyright Act.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.

Entrapment? by NonaMyous · 2003-12-16 15:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

The only way to determine if a file on an uploader's system contains copyrighted material or not is to download the file and examine it. There's no copying and therefore no copyright infringement until the file downloaded.

How does the CRIA prove copyright infringement without having been responsible for causing the infringement in the first place?

Re:Entrapment? by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 15:57 · Score: 1

Read my post above: "But is it uploading???"

Making it avaliable online is enough to show it's no longer a personal copy, and such is infringing.
Re:Entrapment? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:08 · Score: 0

No, they just use strong-arm tactics to screw people out of a few thousand bucks

NOOOOO!!11 by Trolling+4+dollas · 2003-12-16 15:27 · Score: 0

Too much fagotry on the internet these days. I download and steal all kinds of shit using Kazaa and I'm a Canadian. I don't wanna get my ass sued what do I do? Please help.

Re:NOOOOO!!11 by Moocowsia · 2003-12-16 15:32 · Score: 0

Dont upload. Its as simple as that. Downloading is legal.

--
Moo!

definition of upload, once and for all? by demilurker · 2003-12-16 15:27 · Score: 1

a recent comment (which I cannot find) defined "X is uploading" as meaning that the transfer was initiated by by X and the payload is travelling away from X. And "Y is downloading" as: the transfer was initiated by Y and the payload is travelling toward Y.

So according to this, the system on the other end of a download / upload is not uploading / downloading. They are doing something else. Serving / recieving, perhaps.

was that correct or what?

ESR's jargonfile definition defines them in terms of direction only. So according to ESR, when a webserver is serving, it is also uploading. seems wack.

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:27 · Score: 0

No, no.. In Soviet Russia, bits fill YOU in here please!

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by MostlyHarmless · 2003-12-16 15:28 · Score: 1

In soviet russia, evil corporation sues YOU.

--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-12-16 15:28 · Score: 1

No, no.. In Soviet Russia, bits fill YOU in here please!

now *this* is comedy gold. Bravo!

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

simple answers by dirk · 2003-12-16 15:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions. The questions have nothing to do with if P2P copying helps or hurts music. The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people. Owning a book doesn't give you the right to make copies of it and hand it out on the street. Owning a photograph (that someone else took) doesn't give you the right to make copies and hand them out. Owning a copy of Linux doesn't give you the right to distribute binary only copies of it. Owning a CD doesn't give you the right to distribute MP3 copies of the music. IT doesn't matter whether it helps or hurts CD sales, the fact is you have no right to do it. People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create. IF you want to distribute music via P2P, feel free to create some and distribute it. You have every right to decide what happens with the music you make. Just as other people have the right to decide they don't want you giving away their music for free over P2P.

--

"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"

Re:simple answers by mishehu · 2003-12-16 16:01 · Score: 1

Might as well bust all jaywalkers too and make them go to walking school while you're at it.

News flash - things that are considered petty but illegal do occur on a day-to-day basis right on your own street!

The real question is not about the legality of downloading the music, but a) is it truely the source of lost sales, or the driving force keeping any sales going? and b) if it is truely the reason behind them (and not a smokescreen to cover up bad economic times, low quality product, or even the fact that the market has reached a saturation level on a 20 year old technology) does it truely pay to try to enforce, given any backlash you might have? Every product, whether tangible or intangible, has a certain calculated loss due to theft and/or infringement already calculated into its price. Anybody who claims otherwise is just as full of b.s. as those who compare copyright infringers to rapists, murderers, and other felons.

I personally would like to see some innovation without a jail cell (aka DRM). I want oggs that I can download and pay a *reasonable* price (reasonable == 75 cents per song). CD Audio to me is a pain, and honestly, the most recent music I've heard that I've enjoyed was from The Precursors... certainly not something from any major label.
Re:simple answers by stubear · 2003-12-16 16:11 · Score: 1

News Flash - Copyright Law doesn't care whether the artist sees a return on their investment due to rampant violation of their intellectual property. The original poster was correct in saying that it is up to the copyright holder to decide how their music is distributed. In the US distribution is one of the five basic rights granted copyright holders and it's apparently similar in Canada hence the CRIA going after UPLOADERS, or to put it another way, illegal distributors or opyrighted material.
Re:simple answers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:13 · Score: 0

"The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people. Owning a book doesn't give you the right to make copies of it and hand it out on the street. Owning a photograph (that someone else took) doesn't give you the right to make copies and hand them out. Owning a copy of Linux doesn't give you the right to distribute binary only copies of it. Owning a CD doesn't give you the right to distribute MP3 copies of the music. IT doesn't matter whether it helps or hurts CD sales, the fact is you have no right to do it. People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create."

why? whats the harm in copying? i still have the item, i am not profiting as in selling it, this is bad for society how? more people are getting to experience wonderful things(shakespear) as well as horrible things(goatse). if i write something, would i not want as many people to read it as possible? unless it was bad and based on hype of course. if you give something to society, why do you have any say on what happens to it?

otherwise, its much safer just to keep things in your head. no one can have them but you.

ps dont drag linux into it. what if i dont want the damn source code because its useless to me? is that +1 evil pirate? or +1 linux user. it might even prompt me to get the source and contribute to the comunity // it might even prompt me to start writing my own music, for the betterment of mankind
Re:simple answers by cfuse · 2003-12-16 16:26 · Score: 1

Everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions.
Wouldn't the obvious question be: "Why are people happy to break the law to download music illegally rather than pay for it?".
Nothing is going to make P2P music transfers legal, but considering that you can walk into any music store and buy blank CDs I think that this has been totally accepted by society at large as OK behaviour. The only people who don't seem to be happy about it are the RIAA and it's regional equivalents.
No amount of legal action and scare campaigns is going to change a behaviour that is thought of as OK. What's worse, downloading the CD or shoplifting it from the store?
Re:simple answers by stubear · 2003-12-16 16:32 · Score: 1

"if you give something to society, why do you have any say on what happens to it?"

Because society decided long ago to allow creators of art control of their intellectual property for a limited time after which it would fall into the public domain. Without this social contrct artists would not be afforded the possibility to create new work for a living. Before this guilds protected artists and wealthy patrons paid them handsomely to sculpt, compose and paint. The thought of trying to pass off a master's work as your own was unheard of.

Art is not the only thing protected by copyright law however. There are hundreds of thousands of publications that would cease to exist without the protections afforded by copyright law. Information would slow to a trickle or nearly cease at all if magazines, journals and newspapers were not protected by bottom-feeders stealing their content.

Society as a whole is served by this process whether you choose to see it or not. You r"betterment of mankind" tripe might work with the standard ignorant slashbot but in reality it's a non sqeuitur. Your statement is not backed up by any facts other than the common misguided, misconceptions of those who think like you.
Re:simple answers by elflord · 2003-12-16 16:34 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the obvious question be: "Why are people happy to break the law to download music illegally rather than pay for it?".
Convenient. Low risk of getting caught.
Well there you go making the levy on the CD argument (that I disagree with by the way). Maybe not all blank CDs are used to rip off artists.
What's worse, downloading the CD or shoplifting it from the store?
Shoplifting. Because you're more likely to get caught.
Re:simple answers by NSash · 2003-12-16 16:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people.

You would have been correct if you had just said "Does the legal system currently permit you to distribute this music?" Of course, that would also be completely empty. The law should be what is right; something doesn't become right by being law. The legal system is very fluid, with laws being created, revised, re-interpreted, and stricken down continuously. It makes no sense to treat the current state of the law as something sacred.

I further object to your use of the word "right" because it implies that somehow, copyright restrictions are natural. They aren't. If I see someone execute a clever combination in a 2D fighter game, and I then use that same stratagem on him, he might well complain that I was copying him. Indeed, he had thought of it first... and my response would be, "tough." Laws restricting the ability to copy techniques, text, or items are completely artificial. The very ideas of copyright and patents have only existed for a few hundred years. This is not to say they are bad: patents, copyright laws, and trademark protection all exist for very good reason. But to imply that they are somehow natural, that such laws are as inevitable as laws prohibiting theft and murder, is ridiculous.
Re:simple answers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:01 · Score: 0

don't talk about it as though it's some God-give, inalienable right of which everyone agrees. some people really do believe that information wants to be free. some people really do believe that art is not made in a vacuum; some people ask why you would ignore the work of the thousand teachers which taught the painter how to paint, by giving the painter some kind of exclusive priviledge simply because he guided the brush. some people really do wonder why you would think it's better to reward the greed of the creator than to enrich the state of humanity.
Re:simple answers by Saeger · 2003-12-16 17:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create.
And that's where a lot of people, including "real" artists, disagree with you. They don't have a selfish control-freak mentality, or hold The Law up as holy scripture set in stone, but they still manage to make a nice living without trying to enforce artificial scarcity or restrict people from standing on their shoulders.
The fact is that "intellectual property" is only something that can be owned as long as you NEVER let it out of its cage to infect other minds and culture. If it does get out, then the creation will only be respected in so far as society respects you and/or the old social contract (perpetual copyright).
IMNSHO, progress won't slow one bit just because it's no longer possible to enforce artificial scarcity.
"The economy of the future will be based on relationship rather than possession. It will be continuous rather than sequential." -- John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the EFF
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:simple answers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 19:27 · Score: 0

Let's talk about rights. What about artists' rights? In Canadian law, the maximum interest rate a lending institution can charge is 60%. I don't know if there are caps like this in the U.S. but why do artists feel like slaves and going bankrupt after signing a contract with big labels? Big labels don't do anything except loaning money to artists anyway.

http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lov e/ index.html

You talk about all the rights for big labels sodomizing their slaves, but what about their slaves' rights - the ones who actually create content, but don't own any of it? There are much better labour laws for other workers than for artists getting ripped off by big labels. If you want to spout rhetorics on rights, you might want to include everybody's rights.
Re:simple answers by Pofy · 2003-12-16 19:58 · Score: 1

>What's worse, downloading the CD or shoplifting >it from the store?

Shoplifting since you are removing property in the form of a (physical) CD from the shop. When downloading, you are copying (making an additional copy) of something still in existance at the source after you have downloaded it.

Huge difference in my opinion and the whole reason there is something called copyright laws as oposed to normal laws for example dealing with stealing (which would be applicable in shoplifting since you aren't violating copyright laws when shoplifting).
Re:simple answers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 22:23 · Score: 0

You were almost there but failed to finish your thought. The 60 million download question is "What DOES give you the right to distribute copies?" It appears that, in their greed, the record companies sold that right for 25c a CD.

You may maintain otherwise but then I would ask you what right has my $50 or so per music CD bought me (200 tariff-paid CDs of which 2 contain music)? Fair use came with the purchase price of the original so that cannot be it.
Re:simple answers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 03:54 · Score: 0

The reason it has taken the CRIA so long to is that in Canada we may have the right to share music on p2p networks. It depends whether it is private sharing which we have as a right or distrobution which is illegal. A well respected law professor taught at my university a course on internet law. He believed that p2p software was private copying. So yes we do have the right to copy here in Canada. As long as we have the levy on media, we're all set.

Note while the information was from a lawyer it has not been tried in courts so we don't really know. But if anyone challenges the CRIA the CRIA will have a real problem.
Re:simple answers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 06:41 · Score: 0

You're full of crap. Copyright is a recent aberration in the long history of creation of "art". It's idiots like you who like to pretend that it aint so and that society as we know it would collapse overnight with copyright. I hate to break to you, but it just isn't so.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Re:simple answers by iso · 2003-12-17 07:55 · Score: 1

True, the effect on CD sales is irrelevant. But I think a lot of people here are arguing that when suddenly "recorded music" can be copied millions of times by a 6 year old as easily as it can be copied once perhaps it's time to take a serious look at copyright and distribution-related laws that are based upon "recorded music" only existing on limited physical media.

--- Outlook by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:34 · Score: 0

What about MS Outlook? It can be used as a virus platform without users knowing it...

When American P2P violators buy canadian CDRs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:35 · Score: 0

Does this make it legal to download music if you burn it to a Canadian CD-R?

If so, I'll buy some and then pirate to my heart's content.

Re:When American P2P violators buy canadian CDRs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:39 · Score: 0

Well, technically you pay the "extra" tax on each CDR and CDRW to cover the losses of the music industry. This technicality should keep you safe.
Re:When American P2P violators buy canadian CDRs by coke_dite · 2003-12-17 02:51 · Score: 2, Informative

The trouble with this is that there really isn't much money collected in this manner. Especially when you look at how it's distributed.
You can see how the levies are calculated here and read the actual Certified Tariff documents here

--
Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
Re:When American P2P violators buy canadian CDRs by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-17 04:44 · Score: 1

Does this make it legal to download music if you burn it to a Canadian CD-R?

If so then the same should hold true for burning to Audio CD-R in the US.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:When American P2P violators buy canadian CDRs by f0rt0r · 2003-12-17 16:06 · Score: 1

Of course it will protect you...in Canada.

--
I can't afford a sig!

News from the CRIA web site by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-16 15:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

On their web site here, they mention that they "know of [Canadian] users of file-sharing services who are individually uploading and distributing four and five thousand copyrighted songs to potentially tens of millions of people. This is indisputably an illegal practice." (Dec 5 2003)

Perhaps this indicates a lower limit of who they will be targeting, people who have four thousand songs available to share? Yes? Maybe?

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

Re:News from the CRIA web site by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 16:12 · Score: 1

I take issue at this: "individually uploading and distributing four and five thousand copyrighted songs to potentially tens of millions of people"

IANAL, but on a P2P network, rarely do people actually perform an act of uploading. Rather, they make avaliable their computer and music for other people to use to create a copy. I can find nothing in the law that sais I'm not allowed to do that. In fact, it says I'm legally allowed to do all but hit the burn button to help someone else make a copy for personal use.

Also, we've already been told that downloaders are making a copy for personal use, and as such are not liable. Since there's only one copy being made when a song is downloaded, and they've said it's the downloaders making it, the person they got it from can't be said to be making an infringing copy for them.

So the number of people copying the file for their own personal use (ie: downloading), does not come into play in a case against an P2P "uploader".

Now, on the other hand. That person making 5000 songs supposedly for "personal use" avaliable on the 'net probably blows his rights to create those copies out of the water. As such, I can see a file sharer of being held resposible for exactly one count of copyright infringment per unauthorized copy of a song being shared.

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 15:37 · Score: 1

sounds legit to me.. see my post below for the reasons I can see.

He meant... by MunchMunch · 2003-12-16 15:38 · Score: 1

...that a P2P system might only let Canadian users share with US users and vice versa. Then the RIAA could only 'catch' Canadian uploaders and the CRIA could only 'catch' American uploaders.

I honestly don't know how international law would affect this, or even if such a thing is technologically possible, but jurisdiction issues would be a nightmare. What, would they have to involve Interpol? Would the court systems from either country really allow a lawsuit to proceed when the crime was committed in the other country? Or would the CRIA and RIAA start mass extriditions? It'd be a really interesting thing to set up.

Re:He meant... by EvilSporkMan · 2003-12-17 08:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, my thinking is that it'd be way too painful legally for either organization to pursue, once it caught on. The real trick is that it'd have to gain momentum in a very short time period before all the legal brunt hit a small number of people. Perhaps this could be arranged by agreement on existing p2p networks?

--
-insert a witty something-

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by General+Sherman · 2003-12-16 15:38 · Score: 1

Glad to see you're putting that expensive bandwidth to a good use and reading slashdot :/

--
- Sherman

Easy by Cosmik · 2003-12-16 15:39 · Score: 1

Pay someone in Kenya, or for the fun of it, Nigeria (get them to help you, as you have helped them move funds) to do all the uploading for you.

These countries want internet use to increase, and as such have no such law that prohibits uploading (or perhaps not even a governing body that is so imposing as the RIAA or Canadian equivalent).

You can download your files, you stay out of jail, someone in a 3rd world country makes a little bit of money on the side, and everyone is happy.

I love it when capitalism brings the world closer. Gives me a warm feeling in my wallet.

Loophole by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 15:41 · Score: 0

Ok, so standard P2P is gone. What you could do however, is set up a way of digitally borrowing things. This has been suggested before, but of course American law would mess the whole thing up. Essentially, you lease a file by allowing someone to download it. Then the file on your system can no longer be shared until the file that was downloaded is deleted from the system borrowing. Then all that someone would need to do, is create a plugin to copy every file from the directory as soon as it is completed and delete it(thus, allowing the files to be shared again). Here, the downloadee is the one making the copy. The user sharing has allowed them to borrow only. Everything is legal by Candian law.

Just a quick thought.

No DMCA in Canada... by pdaoust007 · 2003-12-16 15:42 · Score: 1

My take on this is that they won't even get passed the ISPs. AFAIK, in Canada they would need a warrant signed by a judge to get personnal information about a subscriber from an ISP...

Re:No DMCA in Canada... by lurker412 · 2003-12-16 16:38 · Score: 1

Well, that makes the process a bit slower and a bit more expensive, but it doesn't stop it. The methods that the RIAA employed resulted in some well-known errors, but for the most part the people they identified were, in fact, sharing files that infringed copyright. With a bit of fine tuning, I would guess that it would be possible to come up with a method that would pass muster for most judges.

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by grmb1 · 2003-12-16 15:42 · Score: 1

Right now I'm at home, paying exactly 0.1$/MB for reading Slashdot. :)

--
-- grmbl woz heer

Or perhaps by Dukael_Mikakis · 2003-12-16 15:43 · Score: 0

They claim that CD sales have dropped by 23 per cent since 1999

Or maybe it could be because approximately 100% of Canadian music sales belong to the likes of Celine Dion, Sarah McLachlan, and Shania Twain.

Well, Titanic's now 6 years old, Sarah McLachlan went to have a baby I think, and Shania Twain has a shelf life of about 2 months.

Though I don't intend to bash Canada at all (in case it was ambiguous) this is clearly a case of "hit 'em while they're down" or "strike while the iron's hot". The CRIA probably sees the juggernaut case that the RIAA is battling and figures, "Hey, we could make some cash, secure some rights, whatever, here." Essentially let the RIAA do all the work and argumentation and everything and piggyback the success (or avoid a costly failure).

Yes, yes, the laws are different and they cannot argue the same case, but there is likely enough overlap that the CRIA can benefit from the RIAA.

If you ask me, they're all being CRIA-babies (pardon the horrendous pun) and (as we've mentioned before) quite effectively demonstrating their ability not to adapt to their environment/technology. The RIAA's distribution network is a dinosaur, and they'll get pounded out just like Boeing if they keep defending their inadequacy rather than improving.

Re:Or perhaps by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:36 · Score: 1

Or maybe it could be because approximately 100% of Canadian music sales belong to the likes of Celine Dion, Sarah McLachlan, and Shania Twain.

Just be grateful you don't have government laws FORCING these artists on you. All music providers, whether they be radio or TV, have to put out something like 35% Canadian content. What the law DIDN'T mandate is quality, which means an extremely high proportion of Canadian music utter shit, that's only become remotely popular because of the government mandated force feeding.

As for the three you mentioned, I have a scenario... All 3 on a plane... Think Big Bopper, Buddy Holly etc... Crash, burn, bye bye talentless harpies.

Wow, they finally did it :P by Radu+Lycan · 2003-12-16 15:45 · Score: 1

Was wondering when they where gonna start suing people :P Suppose they are either somehow ignorant or more likely deliberately disregarding that the economy has been down a bit lately.

/sung to tune of the seven dwarfs whistling theme -
"Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to sue we go."

Re:Wow, they finally did it :P by Trolling+4+dollas · 2003-12-16 16:04 · Score: 0

Actually our economy is growing and at a faster rate than the US!!! I just think Canadian artists are closer to their fans and realise that without us they'd still be flipping burgers!

Cut out the middleman by quanta626 · 2003-12-16 15:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I will gladly pay for music if I knew that the middlemen (CRIA) didn't skim off all those dollars to pay for their annoying advertising campaigns. They collect recordable media levies and the artists see squat.

The recording industry is a dinosaur in the post meteor strike world. Ample bandwidth on the internet makes distribution a breeze. Why pay for the fuel to truck CD's accross the country/seas/etc? If artists were to record their own music and distribute directly to the customers via the internet at a reasonable price perhaps they would see their fair share... and the CRIA/RIAA sees zero cents. The ISPs would then start to make some dollars off of bandwidth usage fees.

Music is information/digital. No need for the 'physical stuff' unless I want it. Then let me burn it myself. Of course being Canadian, I will then have paid for it twice... once to buy direct from the artist and again to the crooked middlemen imposing the levies to line the pockets of their broken business model.

I hope the CRIA follows its big brother the RIAA into the abyss of middleman hell.

ok.. by crabpeople · 2003-12-16 15:53 · Score: 1

"In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.

It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers)."

whats the difference between borrowing something (you have a copy they have copy) and distributing (you have a copy(maybe) they have a copy -$$$). sounds to me like borrowing implies an act of goodwill and not an act of selfishness as in charging for it.

is letting other people use your bandwidth and your time for no charge, more akin to friend type behaviour, or that of a capitalistic pig?

the point of art is to say something. if no one hears you because they cant aford 20$+ a cd, who looses out? society.

besides i went xmas shopping with a friend today and watched her easily spend 120$ on dvds and cds. why? because people always want to buy things! materialism... aint it grand

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...

Hopefully this will die by DaveCBio · 2003-12-16 15:54 · Score: 1

As quickly as it takes to say "poorly thought out idea". If I pay a levy then I can make all the frriggin' personal copies of my music that I want.

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-12-16 15:56 · Score: 1

If I wrote a program that allowed users to put a CD into their CD-ROM drive and allow other users to rip a copy of that CD over the Internet, would that be legal? It looks to me like it might be.

Nope.

For every downloader, there must be an uploader. Someone made the data being downloaded available for access. Someone set up the machine that hosts said data. Someone arranged for a network connection to be set up for that machine. Someone controls the machine that is sending the data stream, and that person, or people, would likely be considered the uploader in any legal situation. It's a dinky distinction, but I've heard about the gaping loophole in Canadian law that allows this to take place. I'm tempted to investigate the legalese myself just to see if that loophole really does exist.

That said, CRIA is a bunch of money-grubbing goons, the exact equivalent of the RIAA. I haven't bought a CD in years, due to my own personal lack of disposable income available for frills like CDs, but even saying that there are very few new discs I would purchase, and not many old discs I have the time and money to hunt down. I have some news for CRIA--the economy's sucked as of late, one of the largest markets is still crawling out of a very bad summer (did you idiots forget SARSstock???), and music that gets radio play has become, for the most part, so derivative it hurts to listen. Thank goodness for community radio and bars with live music.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.

What about ...... ? by Neurotoxic666 · 2003-12-16 15:58 · Score: 0

What about songs with the wrong filename? Was I intentionaly sharing Celine Dion, or did I just think it really was a song from an artist legaly distributed on the net because it was named "John Doe's hits.mp3"? Is that illegal?

What about a non-music file format. Yeah, I know, file extensions are not the same through different O/S. Yet, if I am sharing a Celine Dion's song named "celine dion.jpg", and containing random ASCII characters, while I thought it was a picture... Is that illegal?

And what if I leave some CDs on my frontyard. Is it illegal because I am making them available to anyone? What is the difference between this and having some mp3s in a shared folder?

My point is, I am sure there are many, many, many loopholes/flaws in the way copyright laws are made, enforced and written. There simply wasn't anyone with enough money to spend to challenge these laws with good arguments and a talented lawyer. Yet.

--
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.

Give yourself a voice by BortQ · 2003-12-16 16:02 · Score: 1

If you are Canadian and have a view on this (or anything else) then come and share it. I recently set up the website blogforcanada.com for just this purpose.

Come and help put the people back in charge of our laws.

--

A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 16:03 · Score: 1

let me deconstruct this a bit for you:

Someone makes the data avaliable.. Umm, so what? no copyright infringement there.. Libraries make tons of info avaliable to the public.

Sets up a hosting machine, etc: So what? I can set up my machine to make CD copies, and as long as the person who's using that copy for personal use is the one that hits burn, there's no infringment. (The law is pretty clear on that.)

There is no "uploader". No one actually went and said: "Ok, send this to that person." All they did was give that other person the resources to make their own copy. As stated above, there's nothing illegal about that.

The only thing I can see (mind you, IANAL) about sharing files on P2P networks that is illegal is that if you're intentionally making music avaliable to the public, then it is no longer for personal use. In this case though, you're allowed to do things with original CDs that aren't for personal use. It's only unauthorized copies that you're bound to use only for personal use.

What the heck? by xQuarkDS9x · 2003-12-16 16:06 · Score: 1

Oh joy, now our CRIA wants to behave like RIAA - IE the mob..

--
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy

send them a letter here is their email address by genevaroth · 2003-12-16 16:09 · Score: 1

info@cria.ca tell them what you think,.

Re:Steven "Orca" King dead at age 35 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:16 · Score: 0

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - famous marine mammal Steven King was found dead in his fjord this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:16 · Score: 2, Funny

How many Canadian artists are there anyway? Five? And Celine Dion is selling perfume these days not music so that brings the number down to four.

Re:Who cares? by MikeBabcock · 2003-12-16 17:32 · Score: 1

I hate to feed a troll, but FYI:

Canada.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

The Silver Spoon by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

It takes a certain quality of ass-ness to keep pushing for a bigger and shinier silver spoon. Eventually somebody is going to beat them over the head with it.

Unlike in the US, Canadian artists, musicians, etc, live, primarily, at the pleasure of the Federal Government. If it wasn't for the continual payments, and play-list regulations, Canadian creative types would be working in the factory. Hopefully they figure out the precariousness of the situation before they piss off the people who have made them possible.

Xtal's Pissed Off Music Kiosk by xtal · 2003-12-16 16:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

What's to stop me from setting up a kiosk on my property (or with the permission of a landowner) with a batch of CDs and a CDR. It's cheap enough to do this I might just do it to make a point. I don't think anyone would steal the physical CDs, but you could always jukebox them.

Under the current law, so long as I do not make any money, it is legal for someone to come up to this Kiosk and make all the copies they want. If this bullshit continues without the CDR levy being dropped, and my lawyer agrees with my interpretation of the law - I might just do this.

How is this any different than uploading a ripped version of the CD anyway?

--
..don't panic

Re:Xtal's Pissed Off Music Kiosk by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 16:50 · Score: 1

"so long as I do not make any money"

Why? Is renting out use of a computer and selling CD-Rs illegal now?
Re:Xtal's Pissed Off Music Kiosk by spuke4000 · 2003-12-17 03:03 · Score: 1

Or, better yet, start putting these things in convenience stores. Johnny six pack can come in and make all the CDs he wants for free, and then he might just buy some fritos and a big gulp while he's at it. Just put one of these things anywhere you want to attract customers and make money from them buying other things.

--
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.

Warning: Tired old Canadian joke by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:29 · Score: 0

Those Canadians, eh? Always giving us something interesting to think aboot.

Listen to iRATE radio instead by MichaelCrawford · 2003-12-16 16:29 · Score: 1

iRATE radio is a GPLed Java program with native binaries (compiled with gcj) for Windows and Linux, and a Java webstart installer that runs from the JRE that comes with Mac OS X. From iRATE's homepage:

iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering client/server mp3 player/downloader. The iRATE server has a large database of music. You rate the tracks and it uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music.

In July, iRATE's database held the URLs of 46,000 MP3 files, although I think the database has been temporarily reduced in size so that the ratings can work more effectively for the tracks that remain.

iRATE version 0.3 is coming soon, and needs help with testing. If you'd like to help test, subscribe to the irate-devel mailing list and start trying out the testing builds. There's been a lot of work put into 0.3, but that means there's more that needs testing.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Listen to iRATE radio instead by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 20:48 · Score: 0

Wow, that seems really cool, thanks for the tip.

We need new laws by oystur · 2003-12-16 16:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

When a business is reduced to suing customers you know you've hit a dead end. The music industry needs to issue licenses to file sharers and if they won't then we need to change the law. There is power in numbers and Click the Vote is organizing a grassroots movement to achieve just that.

CRIA: An acronym gone wrong ... by deek · 2003-12-16 16:36 · Score: 1

If this was a Ricci Lake forum, the title of this article would probably be "How to turn your RIA from a CRIA into a tryer!"

So what about DVD sales and movie prices? by xtal · 2003-12-16 16:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Music pricing is another constant. In fact, in the USA, it's gone down a bit. The average price of a CD is down to $13.50 in the US. In 1984, $9.99 was considered a decent price for an LP. That would be $17.30 in 2002 dollars. So, again, the recent huge drop in CD sales can't be attributed to pricing alone, as it's a constant.

In 1984, Movies cost around $100cdn to buy, IIRC. I see lots of DVD movies in Walmart for $14.99-24.99, including new and popular films. A large majority are priced cheaper than the movie soundtracks, something that always makes me chuckle.

I can put a collection of a years worth of "popular" and "pseudo-popular" programs on a couple DVDs. If uploading is quashed, then a much harder to regular and control sneekernet will quickly be established in schools. It's not that hard to do.

One thing I have been waiting for is a small device for doing PTP sharing in public. It would be unstoppable in a setting like a school - integrating 802.11 into an iPod is not technologically a difficult problem. I can imagine it giving people strokes in the record industry though - not just schools, but think subways, whatever.

Once the public has decided there is nothing wrong with 'free' music - then guess what, there probably will be free music. There effectively is now - think to the radio. There is no reason musicians cannot make money touring. There is good entertainment value in records. What will change, is the luxury offices for RIAA executives and private jets for the metallicas of the world will end.

This fight has never been about music copying. They're scared shitless of losing the distribution and production channels.

--
..don't panic

Re:So what about DVD sales and movie prices? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 04:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

This fight has never been about music copying. They're scared shitless of losing the distribution and production channels

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!! 100% right, no room for argument, this is NEVER mentioned enough. It should be the first statement of every P2P argument: that P2P is the way around what IMHO is clearly an anti-trust issue.

simple answers-Prison rebirth. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:42 · Score: 0

"Wouldn't the obvious question be: "Why are people happy to break the law to download music illegally rather than pay for it?"." Yes, but I doubt the people who engage in such activity are able to deal with the answer. "No amount of legal action and scare campaigns is going to change a behaviour that is thought of as OK. " No, but when the irrevocable consequences of one's actions manifest themselves, then the cries of "not me, Lord" are heard loud and clear.

Philosophy by AvengerXP · 2003-12-16 16:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Uploading, downloading, borrowing, distributing. All these are definable and open to interpretation. The philosophical repercussions are great but whether you like it or not, the bottom line decision will be because of a single character, a byte if you will.

'$'.

And that decision is : "Sue everyone, make cash, everyone's a pirate, screw personal rights".

In the long run, fair use and personal private copies and yadayadayada will not mean anything because of the said character.

--
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!

we need to do more than read an article by oystur · 2003-12-16 16:46 · Score: 1

We need join a grassroots movement like Click The Vote and get busy during the coming election year. We should be asking candidates about their positions on file sharing and we should let them know we want the laws changed and the lawsuits to end.

The RIAA may have their special interest puppets in Congress but at the end of the day the politicians need our votes!

The real acronym of the CRIA and WMD by MoFoQ · 2003-12-16 16:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Cocky Retarded Imbreed A**holes.

Man....wait until the Canadian courts say that you can't have downloading without someone uploading; it's like saying it's legal to read but illegal to write, they are one in another...u can't have one without the other. And besides, Canadian artists are pre-emptively compensated on "future *possible*" losses with all the high taxes in their favor. Too bad they don't have a clue that they can't "have their cake and eat it too."

And besides.....P2P isn't the only reason why sales are slumping......(just the same reason why I can't blame P2P for my slumping gpa). Bad economy, high prices, taxes, and sh*tty products are the main reasons. Hell...who in their right mind buy a WMD; a Whiff of Massive Dog-doodoo?

Win one for the Gipper. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 16:52 · Score: 0

"In 1984, Movies cost around $100cdn to buy, IIRC. I see lots of DVD movies in Walmart for $14.99-24.99, including new and popular films. A large majority are priced cheaper than the movie soundtracks, something that always makes me chuckle."

A dollar then isn't the same as a dollar now.

"I can put a collection of a years worth of "popular" and "pseudo-popular" programs on a couple DVDs. If uploading is quashed, then a much harder to regular and control sneekernet will quickly be established in schools. It's not that hard to do."

This is already happening.

"One thing I have been waiting for is a small device for doing PTP sharing in public. It would be unstoppable in a setting like a school - integrating 802.11 into an iPod is not technologically a difficult problem. I can imagine it giving people strokes in the record industry though - not just schools, but think subways, whatever."

Stroking a complete stranger? [Obvious jokes here]

"Once the public has decided there is nothing wrong with 'free' music - then guess what, there probably will be free music. There effectively is now - think to the radio. There is no reason musicians cannot make money touring. There is good entertainment value in records. What will change, is the luxury offices for RIAA executives and private jets for the metallicas of the world will end."

The radio is supported by advertising. Have you ever "supported" yourself by touring? If not, then why are you advising others to do something your not?

"This fight has never been about music copying. They're scared shitless of losing the distribution and production channels.""

The fight may not be about music copying, but that doesn't guarentee the "illegal sharers" the outcome they desire either.

Hillary? by Sebby · 2003-12-16 16:52 · Score: 0

Hillary Rosen? Is that you?

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null

Patronage and Canadian vs American Judicial System by Cordath · 2003-12-16 16:59 · Score: 1

Not necessarily...

In Canada supreme court officials are appointed by the goverment, similarily to the U.S.. The goverment is full of politicians, just like in the U.S.. Where things differ is that campaign contributions to politicians is capped, so CRIA and other lobby groups can't funnel millions of dollars of money into our politicians pockets. ("no strings attached" of course)

Now, it is rather difficult to get rid of a supreme court official once appointed. However it is also true that, just like in the U.S., in Canada these judicials do have some ties of patronage to their apointers. They've gotten to their lofty positions by keeping the right people happy, and they're not about to change. (Not with a nice appointment to the Senate dangling in front of them like a fat juicy carrot anyways...) What is different is that their appointers (the politicians) aren't nearly as motivated to pressure them into making an "industry-friendly" ruling.

Ergo, we might actually see some honest law-making.

Then again, we are talking about lawyers here.

Levy workaround by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:00 · Score: 0

MP3 player's are now being taxed, which is new.

The web page you linked to mentions that the levy only applies to blank media - "a recording medium ... onto which a sound recording may be reproduced ... and on which no sounds have ever been fixed".

So the manufacturers of an MP3 player just have to put a single song on there to avoid the levy. The levy is $2 (<= 1 GiB), $15 (1 GiB to 10 GiB), or $25 (> 10 GiB). They could license a popular song and include it on each player for less than that price (actually, by the given definition, they could just record any sound, and even erase it before shipping the product).

Or they could load it up with independent music - I'm sure many bands would license their music for free to get the publicity. Introducing people to indie music would be a good first step in taking down the RIAA/CRIA/etc.

Wal-Mart is starting a campaign in Canada to educate people about the levy, by putting signs at the cash registers (among other things). I hate the idea of siding with Wal-Mart, but maybe some good can come from this too.

We need to come up with good arguments. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:01 · Score: 0

That's fine, as long as the argument presented to the political process isn't "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine".(1)

(1) In short a "solution" that leans all the way over one way, is no better than a "solution" that leans completely the other way.

whatacrappypresent.com by chatooya · 2003-12-16 17:04 · Score: 1

whatacrappypresent.com

more suits = more reasons not to support the system by paying for cds.

It isn't the same as the US - thankfully by rcpitt · 2003-12-16 17:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Canadian government has already shown that when the law puts a significant percentage of the population in the position of being an un-caught felon, it recognizes that they have voted for change with their actions and moves to do something to remedy the situation.

Sometimes there are external (to Canada) influences that clog up the works and slow things down. Other times they do something that demonstrates the "law of unintended consequences" quite nicely ;)

We have pretty much recognized gay marriage

We are working on de-criminalizing (note: not legalizing) pot (much to the consternation of the US DEA - one of those external influences we get)

We recognized that "private copying" was a fact and was not likely to go away - so came up with the Blank Media Levy which might actually be a reasonable solution if the Copyright Board continues to show restraint

I make no guess as to what our dear government will do about "uploading" if anything; but they might.

In the mean time it should be noted that most of the large retailers selling music have lowered the prices significantly (the small retailers are being frozen out by the distributors and not getting the discounts "because they don't buy enough copies..." - a rant for another time). It remains to be seen if the number of units goes up. I expect it will - even though the total dollars may go down or stay even - and that is the point!

The dollars spent on music will likely stay even or maybe decline a bit - but this is not due to downloading, private copying, or whatever - it is due to external forces in action.

For example - the chocolate bar industry noted a decline in sales during the late 90s and early 2000s - and found that the reason was that their prime targets/customers (the teenagers) were using their disposable income to purchase cell-phone cards for text messaging and phone calls - leaving less to spend on chocolate.

Another influence - the music industry has released less music in recent years than they did previously - there is less to choose from and people are resisting (by downloading - "I've paid for 14 songs but only like 2 on this CD so I'll download another 12 to make up for it" maybe not done consiously - but it makes them feel better). The music publishers have also "perfected" the art of slicing and dicing the repetoir to force (or at least try to force) their target audience to pay for multiple CDs in order to get all the music they want, one or two songs per CD at a time - along with lots of crap put out as filler. I've suggested (to the Copyright Board) that this is in fact "tied selling" and should be viewed as a negative in adjusting the rate for the music levy - derating the "average" earnings per song in the calculation - they didn't bite this time but...

We've also had a bit of an economic turn-down recently too - but of course during such times people will always choose music over food won't they? ;)

The music distribution system is headed for a collapse - with the publishing companies and the industry associations losing out. Problem is that they don't want to lose their profit and influence so are fighting hard to lobby the governments to keep them around. This is what we have to fight. The continuation of an inefficient distribution system in the face of a complete paradigm change and disruptive technologies. It is the job of government to do what the population as a whole needs done in order to survive economically (and other ways but...) and if this means allowing one particular segment of an old industry to founder (the publishers) to the benefit of another segment (the artists) while keeping the general population from being all put in jail or saddled with onerous civil penalties for doing what "everyone is doing" then so be it - that's what we pay them the big bucks for.

There is no guarantee to any business that they will survive doing the sam

--
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it

Re:It isn't the same as the US - thankfully by MikeBabcock · 2003-12-16 17:30 · Score: 1

Its also worth pointing out that (as Slashdot posted many moons ago), the Canadian Copyright Board actually put out a public request for comments about this type of legislation and action.

They wanted to know what *we* thought about DMCA-like regulations in Canada, *we* including consumers and producers.

Reading the list of responses (I don't see it offhand, but someone please post the link), its interesting to see the perspectives of many of the artists / producers (who've never seen a cent from that blank media levy).

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:It isn't the same as the US - thankfully by rcpitt · 2003-12-16 18:20 · Score: 1

The CPCC distributed something over $20 million just about the time that the Levy hearings were being held back in February 2003 - who to and on what basis is not yet a matter of record as far as I know - but the distro was supposedly based on "air-play" and sales - which leaves all the old artists from the 60s and 70s (and 50s and before) who were copied via download by the likes of my brother-in-law because he couldn't find them anywhere else and the radio station where he is (not a large city) didn't play the stuff he wanted. Really fair - not!

--
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
Re:It isn't the same as the US - thankfully by MKalus · 2003-12-17 04:29 · Score: 2

Reading the list of responses (I don't see it offhand, but someone please post the link), its interesting to see the perspectives of many of the artists / producers (who've never seen a cent from that blank media levy).

Here's the link.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.

Re:Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:07 · Score: 0

BTW, in Russia downloading music is too expensive. Average home broadband bandwidth is around 0.1$/MB. However pirated CDs full of MP3s cost about 2$ and are on sale everywhere - flea market, regular shops (govt. doesn't give a fuck). The choice of MP3s is amazing - rarities, bootlegs, full discographies, etc....

Or in other words...
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, MUSIC DOWNLOADS YOU!

Re:girls that have to be 1/2 naked to sell cds by Technician · 2003-12-16 17:09 · Score: 1

Good point. Remember the cover art for the Beatles White album, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Queen's A Night at the Opera?

Great albums. Cover art didn't sell these. The content did.

There were some acts whose cover art did sell a few albums. Remember Cheech and Chong's unique Still Smoking album? The best part was after you bought it and opened it. Suprise! It was a great laugh and very unique.

--
The truth shall set you free!

LENDING is allowed. Lend harddrive over broadband by jellybear · 2003-12-16 17:12 · Score: 1

I've thought about this issue, since I've seen this coming to Canada for some time. It seems to me one good way of making sure the private copying provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act do apply to P2P is by making sure that your p2p software "lends" a portion of your harddrive to the other user.

The case against p2p in Canada is based on the premise that private copying provision only applies to a person making a copy for their own use. A person cannot make a copy for someone else. The questions becomes: how do you characterize a stream of data coming off harddrive A and onto harddrive B? Is person A "copying" the data? It is taken as given that the private copying provision DOES apply to a person borrowing a CD from a friend and copying it. But how about if the person B borrows a harddrive from a friend A and copies THAT? Now what if person B borrows person A's computer, without necessarily moving it physically. This is done with colocs, so it's nothing new. What if person B borrows person A's computer for a few computing cycles at a time, with only certain permissions?

Then, if person B is the one borrowing and using computer A at the instant that it is transmitting data, the scenario falls squarely within what the private copying provision is intended to include.

We need new laws-Music terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:18 · Score: 0

"When a business is reduced to suing customers you know you've hit a dead end. "

What is the ratio of "number of total 'buying the music' customers" to "number of 'non-customers' (remember, wouldn't have bought the music, no loss)"?

"The music industry needs to issue licenses to file sharers and if they won't then we need to change the law. "

Why? Upon what foundation are you going to build your "change", that is fair to everyone, while not destroying the very principles our socio-economic system runs on?

Of course you're 16 by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-12-16 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not shocking at all that you're 16.

Those of us who were ACTUALLY AROUND in the 70s know what the parent post was talking about. You're just deciding the 70s had more gold, because it's 2003 and you can look back on it and name all the good bands. Meanwhile, there were tons of top ten, disco-pop bullshit acts.

Today, we have bands that you list as bad which many people consider good--Green Day, Good Charlotte, not to mention everyone from The Strokes to Opeth to Metallica to Foo Fighters to A Perfect Circle to...well, hell, I'm just listing off certain bands I listen to. There is so much more. Maybe it's not the entire freaking music industry with tastes that are different, but just you instead?

If people didn't pirate the fuck out of every new album, maybe labels would be more willing to shell out money on the riskier acts. As it is, it's too expensive to expect a return on your investment when you know that if it turns out good enough, half of its sales will be robbed to convenient online piracy.

Sorry, kid, there's no justification.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Re:Of course you're 16 by qeveren · 2003-12-16 17:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Dear pedantic Slashbots: If cable theft is stealing, why is MP3 downloading "infringement?" Face it; it's stealing

Cable theft is theft-of-service. Downloading copyrighted MP3s is copyright infringement. Legal definitions, is how they're different. ;)

--
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Re:Of course you're 16 by nudicle · 2003-12-16 18:46 · Score: 1

If people didn't pirate the fuck out of every new album, maybe labels would be more willing to shell out money on the riskier acts. As it is, it's too expensive to expect a return on your investment when you know that if it turns out good enough, half of its sales will be robbed to convenient online piracy. Is "pirate the fuck out of" code for p2p? I think this is a meaningful question because piracy has been going on for a long time, but p2p has brought it to a new level. If "pirate the fuck out of" doesn't refer to p2p, were labels more willing to promote riskier acts and inject more brilliance (and crap, admittedly) into the mainstream, at least potentially, in the 70s? And if so, wouldn't it be true, or at least presumptively true (which is to say you'd need to show some data rather than invective) that 70s labels were more given to produce music like, say, King Crimson than they are today?
This is totally not meant to be sarcastic. It's just the first two paragraphs of your response seemed to say "there's same same good/crap ratio" and the last seemed to say "with pirating the fuck out of music these days labels are more concerned with sure things," and it seemed like they might be inconsistent. I have no data as to total number of albums released in these periods and am aware that the number of "musicians" has increased exponentially such that now "guitarists" are dime-a-dozen in a way they didn't, at least as obviously, be before.
Just wondering.
Re:Of course you're 16 by pikkumyy · 2003-12-16 19:46 · Score: 0

If people didn't pirate the fuck out of every new album, maybe labels would be more willing to shell out money on the riskier acts.

Actually, they already are. And have been. Most of the money spent by the recording labels go to artists and albums that don't sell so well. When they find a chicken that lays golden eggs they pump it for what ever it's worth. I hardly think piratism and illegal sharing is the cause of money loss for the recording industry, as the most shared songs are always the ones that pump the money. People still buy lots and lots of the same CDs they download. The artists that didn't make it in the charts won't make it in Kazaa either.
Re:Of course you're 16 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 01:25 · Score: 0

Wow, you're wrong in every single paragraph! That's pretty amazing. Hell, even your sig is fucking misguided!
Re:Of course you're 16 by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-12-17 16:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Wow, you accept legal definitions when it comes to cable theft, but not MP3 downloading. What a surprise.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Should taxpayers pay for this?-Equality? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:31 · Score: 0

"Should taxpayers really pay police, FBI, etc. for playing collection agent for the RIA?" Interesting argument. Now when there are riots somewere, and the populace is tearing up the business district. Should "tax funded" law enforcement stop them? After all, law enforcement would be protecting "businesses" like the local office of the RIA(A).

Can we upload non-Canadian music? by pb2k · 2003-12-16 17:39 · Score: 1

Does the CRIA represent non-Canadian artists, and the distribution of non-Canadian music in Canada? I haven't seen any mention of whether they will only be targeting uploaders of Canadian music or all music in general. Quite frankly I don't have all that much Canadian music. One thing I've found ironic about the media levy. Since the majority of the music swapped is not Canadian, they are profitting from stolen music of artists they don't even represent (plus all the other copyrighted material that is swapped). They are also profitting when media is used for legitimate purposes such as HD backups, but that is not so much ironic as asinine.

Re:Can we upload non-Canadian music? by Txiasaeia · 2003-12-16 17:57 · Score: 1

The CRIA represents Canadian record companies, not artists per se. Sony Canada and EMI might have Canadian artists in their coiffers, but they also represent their global companies with international artists. The CRIA will be representing the companies themselves and not the artists so yes, up/downloading songs from non-Canadian artists will still get you in trouble.
However, that'll be a very interesting statement in court: "Your honour, I'd never pirate Canadian music, just that bloody awful American crap!"

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

Jobless Recovery by Richard+M.+Nixon · 2003-12-16 17:49 · Score: 0

What is this slow economy you speak of? The Dow is over 10000 you know. Consumer spending is up too. What's the prob?

Maybe he is refering to unemployment?

You don't even have to be unemployed to be frugal in this economy. A lot of companies right now figure they can treat their employees like crap because of the unemployment rate. Some companies like to pull stuff like lay off half the employees and then make the other half work twice as hard.

Even if you got a job, you gotta be prepaired for stupid stuff like this to happen.

When things are tight, people consider their income a lot less disposable. This means less sales of small consumer goods such as CDs and DVDs. There might be some people out there making a lot of money. But stuff like CD sales depend on the masses making large purchases.

Unless you expect the top 1% to purchase a couple million Britney CDs on their own.

--
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!

Spiritual Battle by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 17:51 · Score: 0

War!!! We are in a spitual battle. Xians have set the stage. Everyone deserves the right to Their Cash. Multigenerational copyrights have become the norm. Where are we to go from here?

I'll tell you. Information *still* wants to be free. As cliche as it might be, it is sill nonetheless the truth.

The Warriors of the Light will find it increasingly difficult to bring the heathen to their view, but it's still necessary to do so. Information Transfer is the call to arms. It defines us. It's the purpose we serve.

Its purpose the created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us.
That guides us. That drives us.
It is purpose thay defines us. Purpose that binds us.

Ultimately, the direction may be difficult, but it's the way things are.

4 Years of fundimential christiandom tauch me many things, the most importan of which are that we ARE FREE. You think we aren't? Get away from that damned boob toob for a while. You will receive thoughts that are you own again. Thoughts that scare those amoung us that still think for themselves.

Matrix references aside, don't be afriad. You are strong. The Man desires you remain unaffected. The Man wants you to hide. Don't do it. We enter a Brave New World. Be Strong.

Nice idea by phorm · 2003-12-16 17:52 · Score: 1

But fundamentally a lot less useful than Kazaa, seeing as though selection would be curtained to "contents of 1 audio CD" instead of the vast offering current P2P give.

Still, not a bad theory to start with.

Re:Nice idea by IHateUniqueNicks · 2003-12-16 20:16 · Score: 1

Interesting. Just occured to me that this seems to be a completely legal buisness model... Imagine iTunes, with no DRM, and downloads (bandwidth used) for $0.25? All you'd need is a massive array of CD-ROM drives. :)

Downloaders are making personal copies using the access to your system that you sold them. Any flaws?
Re:Nice idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 21:32 · Score: 0

As far as I can tell, as long as you offer the content from a tariff paid CD, you are golden.
Re:Nice idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 02:46 · Score: 0

Even a CD full of MP3s would be a reasonable contribution. You could also set up a jukebox.

GREAT NEWS! by tbond_trader · 2003-12-16 17:52 · Score: 1

Way to piss people off more and disinterest them towards music in general. You can blame the drop on theft but in reality people are spending more time in front of their computers and less time listening to music, thus out of "sight", out of mind.

The original Napster was the best thing for the music industry and they shot themselves in the foot. It encouraged listening to music and gave people a reason to purchase the full CD. It was the ultimate music sampler and they went and fucked it up beyond repair. Now they will reap the damage they have done and more so with suing people.

Hopefully it will put them out of business...I know, I know, the recording artists would be eating trash before the RIAA lost a dime.

And they have a right? by phorm · 2003-12-16 17:58 · Score: 1

"Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?"

No, maybe not. But the problem is that corporations manage to get acts pulled that give legal rights where they have no moral ones. If they wish to sue P2P file traders into oblivion, should they also have a legal right to tax the sh** out of CD sales for everyone (and not just music "pirates") with the premise that it is going to cover the losses due to piracy?

It's a little thing called "having your cake and eating it too" (or vise-verse). These companies not only want to stop P2P, they want to use it as an excuse to tax everybody and fill their own coffers.

Now you might say, "oh, of course a dirty music pirate would say such a thing." But, guess what, I'm pro-rights, no pro "piracy." I don't pirate music, but I do buy CD's. So tell me why my moral rights are being trampled on because some big company is using their horrendous amounts of money to increase their "legal" rights, in order to make more horrendous amounts of money? The law is supposed to represent the people... you might want to remember that when greedy corporations are using it as a weapon to defend their pocketbooks.

Re:Patronage and Canadian vs American Judicial Sys by the_2nd_coming · 2003-12-16 18:09 · Score: 1

I think he was saying that the Canadian Supreme court likes to make up laws with their rulings rather than interpret laws already on the books.

so, for instance, if there was no law saying murder was illagal, the canadian supremes would say "we have decided Murder is illegal"

no laws interpreted, just them making some decision based on their ideas.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Re:Patronage and Canadian vs American Judicial Sys by the_2nd_coming · 2003-12-16 18:12 · Score: 1

I meant I think I was saying, not he :-)

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Weak.... by poetry_in_gasoline · 2003-12-16 18:20 · Score: 1

I really do not think that these lawsuits have no real legs to stand on. If the CIRA or whatever they are called is using the software that they use in the U.S. to "track and identify computers that trade music files" it is in violation of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

I am almost tempted to dl 1000 CIRA songs and share them with 187,903,274,091,841 people and when the officer comes a knockin' on my door with a subpeona, beat the CIRA with section 8 in court.

P.S. Can someone tell the properties of this softwear?

Re:the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 18:24 · Score: 0

I'd say music is even better now.

What you are missing is the crap ratio ON THE RADIO and others is much higher now.

Prefab performers like the Monkeys have always been around but you could at least have found something a little less crap on the airwaves.

The Clearchannel mess that Clinton allowed is often overlooked but apart having one or two companies control the majority of the airwaves
is a BIG part of this equation.

When your only choices are Britney, Cristina, Beyonce and any other bimbo of the month, you obviously have a problem.

Your point is pretty irrelevant.

And Im glad your last testes have finally dropped, since I cant figure out what the last sentence nor the context apart from some need to prove your masculinity.

"Blatant."

zeke

constitution stuff by poetry_in_gasoline · 2003-12-16 18:31 · Score: 1

really do not think that these lawsuits have no real legs to stand on. If the CIRA or whatever they are called is using the software that they use in the U.S. to "track and identify computers that trade music files" it is in violation of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." I am almost tempted to dl 1000 CIRA songs and share them with 187,903,274,091,841 people and when the officer comes a knockin' on my door with a subpeona, beat the CIRA with section 8 in court. P.S. Can someone tell the properties of this softwear?

nit! by bitspotter · 2003-12-16 18:43 · Score: 1

Owning a copy of Linux doesn't give you the right to distribute binary only copies of it.

Sure it does. Source isn't required unless someone asks for it.

Hmm weird by future+assassin · 2003-12-16 18:43 · Score: 1

They claim that CD sales have dropped by 23 per cent since 1999 That about the same time I started buying all my cd's from used cd stores and pawn shops. Man I love saving myself money and getting new release cd's at half the price. Heh I just need to find one country that allows uploads and my ass is legaly covered.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Only Music by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 19:00 · Score: 0

A big point people are missing here is that this only applies to musical works. It does not apply to software, movies, or even audio books - those are still illegal to download (in Canada). (it's in the introduction, and section 'D' of the board's ruling.)

~~Everest

Record sales are down by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 19:44 · Score: 0

They say recrod sales are down , but at the same time i hear that they are also releaseing less.

Can anybody conferm this?

Re:Record sales are down by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 01:26 · Score: 0

They've increased the prices also. I can't verify this to be true because the links to the real figures are dead.

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

Silly analogy by Zog+The+Undeniable · 2003-12-16 20:18 · Score: 1

Silly analogy of the day: I suppose we should be teaching our kids not to share sweets and toys these days, in case they get sued by Mars and Mattel. Make the little critters buy their own stuff to eat and play with so some fat CEO can have that heated driveway he's got his eye on.

It follows logically from "music piracy is theft" - if the pigopolists are going to equate IP with physical goods.

--
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.

Re:the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same by Goldberg's+Pants · 2003-12-16 20:34 · Score: 1

Radio has nothing to do with it. NOBODY I know listens to the radio anymore.

The fact is, most music today is formulaic excrement. As I posted earlier, people look fondly on Zeppelin, Floyd etc... "The Wall" is probably one of my top 3 favourite albums of all time. I was 8 when it was released, and never actually heard the album in it's entirety until 1989. I still love it now, almost a quarter century after it's release.

Do you honestly believe that come 2028... Hell, come 2013, *ANY* album or band from 2003 will be even remotely as highly regarded as Floyd and "The Wall" are now? Face it, the spirit of innovation and invention has had a stake driven through it's heart.

By 2010, nobody but the most hardcore fans will give a shit about ANY band from 2003.

It's useless. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 20:50 · Score: 0

The majority of file sharers are not from Canada. So what if uploading is banned there. The ammount of music available through P2P is not gonna change. Canadians will still be able to download music. Thus the situation will not change for CRIA at all with regard to downloaded (pirated) music.

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 21:25 · Score: 0

It's not really a loophole so much as the actual service the tariff pays for. Remember that this is not officially a tax: according to the law the buyers of blank media are paying full royalties on whatever music they put on the media. At that point the Act is quite explicit in stating this:

(from Bill C-32, the blank media levy amendment)

70.17 Subject to section 70.19 [a non-tariff agreement], no proceedings may be brought for the infringement of a right referred to in section 3, 15, 18 ["copyright in sound recordings"] or 21 against a person who has paid or offered to pay the royalties specified in an approved tariff.

Fun tax in the works. by NaDeS · 2003-12-16 21:31 · Score: 1

Just hold up a second ladies lets not forget Rita McNeil she must eat about 30lbs of smelts a day, if we download her music how will she continue to preform the double backflip at Sea world? I had four toast today, Rita McNeil and this levy can both eat my shit. "Now we get Christina Aguilera dressed like a cheap street whore working her poochie on MTV on tape loop" Yum Poochie nothing wrong with that, watch yourself soon there will be a tax on masturbation and as rumor has it the Canadian Government are working on a machine that latches on and taxes you based on rawness (this thread made me pretty raw). Is there anyway that this tax on media can be appealed and how did this happen did anyone even put up a fight? For the record cfuse said poochie first.

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 21:36 · Score: 0

Talk to a lawyer (IANAL) but it appears that, as long as the content is offered from a tariff-paid CD you are probably good. If you use the original CD you are probably less good (paying the tariff appears to confer almost unlimited rights).

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-16 22:13 · Score: 0

If you want to get into legal definitions, there is not an "uploader for every downloader". Uploader/downloader refer to who starts it, and which directions. You can "download things" (http), and the http server is not legally "uploading" because uploading involves initiating it

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by netsharc · 2003-12-16 22:37 · Score: 1

Won't your CD-ROM drive die of overuse? I wonder how legal it is when you make a big enough cache that stores the CD contents, so that it would only have to be read once.. ;-)

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by GrassMunk · 2003-12-16 23:21 · Score: 1

in all reality do you really need the cd? If you rip it to mp3 and store it on your harddrive what are you doing thats illegal? No different then making a tape copy of the CD. Then if you share the mp3s of the CDs you own your not breaking the law ( IANAL by any means ). So Technically speaking if you downloading songs from iTunes and shared them on kazaa your not breaking the law.Am i right or way off?

Re:girls that have to be 1/2 naked to sell cds by Bigbutt · 2003-12-16 23:35 · Score: 1

Do you mean "Big Bambu" with the rolling paper? Still Smokin' was a [bad] movie.

Sleeping Beauty (in the shape of a folded downer) was cool too.

"Dave's not here."

--
Shit better not happen!

Photoshop by dolo666 · 2003-12-17 01:21 · Score: 1

Copyright is not a misnomer; it means the right to copy. It would not be illegal, and if someone was arrested for downloading Photoshop (and I have not heard of one case of this), they could use the defence that they beleived they were permitted to do so by law. The thing with copyright laws, is that it's very difficult to prevent them from blanketing an entire industry, and if they apply to one industry, it is difficult (but not impossible) to disclude them from another.

Re:girls that have to be 1/2 naked to sell cds by Technician · 2003-12-17 02:03 · Score: 1

Ok my memory is shot. It's the one with them sitting in a car. When you pull out the sleve, it shows them sitting in a car, but the outside shell is missing so you can see the bricks inside the door.
It wasn't my flavor of humor, so I didn't buy that album. I friend showed it to me.

Some people may enjoy the "dog shit" track, but I only found it funny the first time.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Well I can tell you one change I notice by Sycraft-fu · 2003-12-17 02:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Is the way music is mixed and mastered. Today everything, is limited and compressed to hell. They squash all the dynamic range out of the music to make it sound louder. This pissess me off. I have a really nice setup that can reproduce impressive dynamics, I want to get use of it. But if the music is popular (this isn't done with Jazz and Calssical often thankfully) it is just limited like nothing else. It can be crap like Britney Spears or good stuff like Evanescence or Lacuna Coil, doesn't matter, it's all limitied to hell.

This just wasn't done in the 70s, probably because I don't think the look-ahead peak limiter had been invented yet. Even the crap still had at least SOME dynamic variance.

Then there is the fact that they are feeding everyone through the Antares Autotune all the time, even during live performances. I mean one of the thing that made some of the greats unique was their playing/singing OUT of tune. Heck, some kinds of music regularly makes use of quarter tones which is "out of tune" by western musical thinking.

I agree, there has always been shitty music. Hell, I've played shitty classical form the 1400s, it's not like there weren't crappy composers back then. The problem is lately they seem to be trying to homogonize all music and make it so that people literally CAN'T become great, even if the try.

This isn't even to mention their greedy licensing practises and their illegal behaviour.

Re:Well I can tell you one change I notice by ooby · 2003-12-17 06:24 · Score: 1

There are some emerging progressive rock groups with incredible range, vocally and instrumentally. From a recording standpoint, I think they are less mastered than mainstream music (this, I cannot guarrantee). Many of these bands, however, prefer to record their songs as a band, rather than individually.

When these singers perform, I don't think a tuner could keep up with them.

W.R.T. homogoniety, once once breaks away from mainstream music, once discovers that there is a plethora of not-so-popular variety in music.
Re:Well I can tell you one change I notice by Sycraft-fu · 2003-12-17 10:45 · Score: 1

I know, I listen to Jazz and calssical mainly and they don't do it with that. They also don't do it with DVD Audio (at least the ones I own).

However with popular music, it represents a major shift for the worse. There is good and bad popular music now, as there has always been. However I feel that the recording is making the good stuff much worse, and preventing any from really shining.

that is how it is different (and worse) today than it was in the 70s.

I AM Canadian and by webzombie · 2003-12-17 02:04 · Score: 1

taxed, user fee'd and surcharged to death!!!

So what if this organization trys to target "uploaders"... the law, yes we still have laws, in this land doesn't allow for self-serve search warrants and while the details of P2P being legal in Canada are inaccurate the fact still remains that sharing music in Canada, even copying a friends CD is NOT ILLEGAL... so if I "connect" to a friends computer and "copy" a song for my use...technically this is NOT ILLEGAL! It all depends on your perspective as to whether or not you "uploading", "downloading" or "copying"... this will be a very interesting argument for a judge to hear. Yes we still have lucid judges in Canada too!

These types of provisions are well known to the Canadian music industry because they allowed them into the relatively new laws that they hope to use against "file uploaders". You know the same ones who already pay a copying tax on their media and players.

/.sig Did I Say Terrorist yet... yes.. good!

Lies, damned lies, and statistics by HomerJayS · 2003-12-17 02:21 · Score: 1

They claim that CD sales have dropped by 23 per cent since 1999, attributing that drop to P2P

My salary has dropped by about 23% since 1999. Does this mean I can sue P2P users as well?

Dumb Idea maybe but by pejo · 2003-12-17 02:29 · Score: 1

What if p2p users employed a wide-scale honeytoken solution to combat this.
The simplest example would be to take safe Mp3s and rename them and/or resize them so that they fit the profile of an offending file and widely distribute them. Of course there would need to be some way of proving
in court that files you were accused of having were in fact just these honey tokens which should be easy enough (or not). This would prove a big pain in the ass for both the RIAA as well as Downloaders but I wouldn't mind Downloading a song more than once if I knew that it was hindering the Gestapo tactics of the RIAA or CRIA or whoever.
I haven't had a chance to think it out yet obviously -- but I think some permutation of this could work.

CRIA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 02:38 · Score: 0

Apple: Apple Announces 25 Million Song Downloads

Did they consider this is why cd sales are down??

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 02:50 · Score: 0

When you bought the song you were given the private use rights. It would be fair use to make a copy on your hard drive but to then share that copy would be illegal (still bound to private use).

What about market saturation? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 03:05 · Score: 0

This seems to get little play in this argument. How many "Dark Side of the Moon or The Long Run or (insert your favorite classic 70's album here)" are they selling now? Those have all been rereleased in the 90s and every body who likes them has the CD. How much of an effect is this having?

Some thoughts by alexo · 2003-12-17 03:09 · Score: 1

> They don't have to prove anything. You get sued, then they ask if you want
> to settle out of court or go through a lengthy trial process.
> Its a lose-lose situation for the parties involved except for the lawyers and
> Celine Dion.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

I believe that somebody can only sue you if you infringe on their copyrights.
So, what happens if the Canadians host music copyrighted by the RIAA and the USAmericans host music copyrighted by the CRIA (and both disable sharing partial files, just to be safe)?

As an aside, just how much CRIA-owned music is worth downloading anyway?

I am not that familiar with the Canadian legal system. Do the Canadian courts award "expenses" to be paid by the losing party to the winner? If so, the possibility of intimidation through litigation is greatly reduced.

When you help music piracy... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 03:16 · Score: 0

You're helping Hitler!

Why should Canadians be concerned? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 03:17 · Score: 0

The cartels are dinosaurs on their way out. They're in AT-ATs and the rest of the world is in snowspeeders.

Just continue to behave as you were, fine Canadian citizens. CD sales will continue to drop worldwide, DRM-lite solutions will be a holdover for a while, then DRM will arrive in its full glory. Its utter marketplace failure will elevate piracy from a trend to a lifestyle and reality. Our natural, God-given right to copy things our senses happen to experience will return in full glory, and the problem of copy rights for the purpose of promoting useful arts and sciences will have to be hashed out from scratch to account for the modern environment.

The AT-AT will cause a disturbance when it falls, and may shoot a few targets on the way down, but it's as good as gone.

Re:Why should Canadians be concerned? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 03:18 · Score: 0

Cartels are on their way out? When you tell that to the CRIA and RIAA, don't forget to mention it to OPEC as well.

It's hypocrisy!! by Lord_Alex · 2003-12-17 03:47 · Score: 1

Bloody hell! For the past forever, they have been charging way too much for way too little. Now when we, their victims, start stealing back they claim injustice. Artists create art because they _like_ to, not because they want money. Sure, money gives them all sorts of ego and general good-feelyness but it still does not improve the quality of the music, or feed the hungry. I know there are lots of uber-rich people who donate bazillions of helpful monies to every single charity, but "lots" is not to be confused with "EVERY".

If you saw some pompous worm hawking crappy trinkets in the street for $23.95, you'd probably look at him like he was some type of pompous worm. But when the worms get stores to sell their _still crappy_ wares, wares that were almost-sort of-in-some-sense-of-the-word stolen from the artists, we all gather 'round and purchase the package of dirt; dirt that contains a few nifty-looking special shiny pieces of dirt.

Somebody offered me _just_ the nifty dirt, for free. Can't beat that.

Didn't the CRIA read Slashdot, or even the local newspaper? Did they not notice that the RIAA shot itself in the foot, then the other foot, then both hands. Soon they're going to try to kick themselves in the face. Will the CRIA follow suit? "Hey! That looks like a cool dance!" As a Canadian, I think I should be allowed to bring all my CDs that do not contain CRIA-Infected music and get my presume-you-are-a-criminal money back. I am very glad that I do not live in the USA, because of the super-retarded fair use-inhibiting RIAA, MPAA, DMCA et al. But I fear that Canada will jump into the same sinking boat.

Isn't there some way we can obliterate lunacy from our "democratic" societies? Shove some opinion down a few political throats.

Lord_Alex
-End Of Opinion-

--
How much work could a network work if a network could net work?

YRO? by Sloppy · 2003-12-17 04:17 · Score: 1

Posting something like this to the YRO section and the front page, is dumb. This is not an important rights issue.

The thing they are prosecuting, is an act that would have been illegal even when your grandparents were children. Copyright has always been the law and part of the society that every single person here grew up with.

Save the front page YRO stories for stuff like DMCA, where innocent people are being persecuted under new laws that criminalize perfectly legitimate activities that used to be legal and still don't harm anyone. It pisses me off when true rights that I have taken for granted all my life, are taken away.

OTOH, when society is slow to adapt to the new realities created by technology, and fails to grant me new rights that override laws that have existed for hundreds of years, that is hardly newsworthy. Ok, sure, maybe it's worthy of some discussion, but posting it under YRO and on the front page, dilutes information and trivializes the serious issues and threats that we the people are facing. Think about what you're doing, Timothy.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

FTAA? by phorm · 2003-12-17 04:17 · Score: 1

Why would we sign the FTAA though? If you look at current "free trade" agreements, they are much more "line the pockets of American business and screw Canadian ones" agreements.

Want a good example: try looking up "British Columbia" and "Softwood Lumber." I'm hoping that sometime the Canadian gov't might wake up and realize this, but I think they're too busy listening to the jingle of big-business coin in their pocket instead of the voices of taxpayers.

Re:FTAA? by MKalus · 2003-12-17 04:24 · Score: 1

Want a good example: try looking up "British Columbia" and "Softwood Lumber." I'm hoping that sometime the Canadian gov't might wake up and realize this, but I think they're too busy listening to the jingle of big-business coin in their pocket instead of the voices of taxpayers.

And with Martin now PM.... Yeah, I am sure they will ignore big business....

M.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.

Uploaders? by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-17 04:41 · Score: 1

threatening to file lawsuits against individual file sharers (specifically uploaders)

So specifically against nobody then.

No one uploads (pushes) in P2P. Everyone downloads (pulls).

Uploading and downloading are not two sides of the same transaction in the same way that shoplifting is not the same as the store pushing the product into your arms and shoving you out the door before you could pay.

Someone uploads or downloads. Not the machine nor the software but the person who causes the transaction. Otherwise who are you going to charge with the crime? The computer? (We have enough cases of objects being charged with crimes in the enforcement of drug laws in the US.)

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?

CD sales are down since 1999.... by cagem0nkey · 2003-12-17 04:43 · Score: 1

.... because the entire economy has gone down the toilet!! I'm sick and tired of hearing that CD sales are down since 1999 and the blame being placed solely on downloaders. I haven't bought more than a small handful of CD's since then myself, for two reasons: 1) I'd rather take care of necessary stuff first and CD's are necessities right now. 2) The music that is being released now sucks. I've downloaded my fair share of tunes ( which I don't do anymore either, but that's besides the point here) and the only time I did that was after the economy tanked!

--
ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise

Don't entirely agree... by Astin · 2003-12-17 04:48 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I agree with your statement about the quality-to-crap ratio. Oh, I agree that there's always been crap out there with the good stuff, but it seems that the good stuff had a lot more appeal and long-term potential than it does now. I haven't bought a CD from a new artist in years now, and I've barely downloaded any mp3s in the last 2 years. There is very little out there that I can stand to listen to more than a few times before I'm sick of it. However, Zeppelin, Floyd, Simon & Garfunkel, Pearl Jam (mainly Ten), Coltrane, Getz, Peterson, etc, I have never gotten tired of.

The other problem is that a lot of the crap out there today is the mainstream stuff and the good music is underground and college radio play. Seems to be a turnaround from the past, where The Beatles, Stones, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Alice in Chains, Run DMC, Public Enemy, etc, got the airplay, and the one-hit wonders were just that. It's quite sad that the stuff we here is played because it's marketed so hard, and not because of its musical merit. Heard an interesting quote the other day: "Sure, Britney Spears will sell a ton of albums this month, but Pink Floyd has been selling tons of albums for years, even without recording anything new." It's all about short-term gain now.

Yah, I know I sound like a middle-aged hippie trying to hold on to the good old days, but I'm in my mid-20s and rather disappointed by what I hear today. The only time I hear anything I like is when a friend who buys random albums says, "Hey, you should listen to this band nobody's heard of." Of course, finding that band's album anywhere becomes a whole other challenge. Seriously, if every major band I heard didn't sound like every other band that comes out in the genre, I might be interested. Very rarely do I hear something that impresses me these days on the radio, which for better of for worse, IS the major marketing tool for CD sales.

--
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.

No parity between uploading and downloading by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-17 04:55 · Score: 0, Troll

For every downloader, there must be an uploader.

So for every case of shoplifting, there must be a shelf that pushed a product into the thief's hands and a store that shoved him out the door? Sorry, a store can give free gifts without the recipient being charged with shoplifting, and a shoplifter can't get off by claiming the item was a free gift.

There is no parity between an upload and a download. Anyone who tells you different is trying to convict you of something.

If you want to make it a crime to deliberately place works copyrighted by others without securing the copyright holder's permission on an unprotected filesystem with the intent that they would be copied by others, fine, but don't call it uploading.

What's next, making selling candy bars via the honor system illegal?

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?

Re:No parity between uploading and downloading by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-17 10:19 · Score: 1

What?! Just because I put my observation into my own signature, suddenly I'm a troll?

BTW, it is in reference to this subthread in "The Most Incorrect Assumptions In Computing?" where the same information got +3 Informative (and only one -1 Overrated).

Maybe I should change it back to, "If your use of lose and loose is loose you lose."

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:No parity between uploading and downloading by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-17 14:36 · Score: 0

Um, there are legal uses for having items on a shelf. What are the legal uses in Canada for uploading copyrighted material?

I think your analogy is a bit soft.
Re:No parity between uploading and downloading by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-18 18:15 · Score: 0

Don't worry...I rated the mod as "unfair" in M2.
Re:No parity between uploading and downloading by HTH+NE1 · 2003-12-19 05:05 · Score: 1

The purpose of the analogy is to illustrate that an action from one perspective does not imply the opposite action from the opposite perspective. The flipping of legality with the perspective is only there to illustrate clearly that reversing the action is not equivalent, and thus you can't use upload and download interchangably on the same transaction.

It's an analogy on grammatical usage of the verbs to upload and to download, not on the legality of uploading and downloading.

But if we were to apply it in the legal sense, you have an agent for the CRIA. He downloads something from your system--which is a legal action--then turns around and claims that you uploaded it to him, thereby making you responsible for his action (in absentia I might add). That is unreasonable, and so reversing uploading and downloading is also unreasonable.

If you put a pie on a windowsill to cool, that is not an invitation for someone to take it. For sake of argument, let us assume that the pie was purchased from a vendor who had you agree to a license that it was licensed to you for your personal consumption only. (Silly, I admit, but for the sake of argument, assume it, and that it is a legally binding agreement.) Still, you are not obligated to provide security for it from the unscrupulous.

It is reasonable for one to secure one's possessions, but it is not an obligation. Theft is theft regardless of security or lake thereof. Same goes for copyright infringement.

Putting your licensed pie on a windowsill with a sign that says, "Take this!" though is an encouragement to others to sample it in violation of the license. That's what one does with P2P file sharing: the purpose of the software is to share files, you're putting files on it to be shared, so you intend that others take copies of the files.

But you're offering them for download, not upload. You're not pushing them; you're allowing others to pull them. It appears then that it is still legal in Canada.

But I'm not arguing the legality of offering those files in Canada. The nuances of applying the concept of a loaned physical item being copied by someone else while it is in their possession and applying it to unfixed data that can be copied without it changing possession are hard to work out while avoiding, as Douglas Adams had Ford Prefect say, "trying to think of a way of looking at it which means we get to eat it."

I'm arguing that it is not "uploading", and more specifically that someone downloading from you is not the same thing as you uploading to him. You can't just swap the subject and verb for another pair and describe the same action because that changes the actor.

And assigning the actions to the machines instead of the people is just a means either to avoid responsibility for the actions (for the person doing something that would be illegal for him) or to assign responsibility for the actions to another (for the person looking to make something illegal that isn't).

Anyway, the point is no one is uploading copyrighted material on P2P. I've been told some P2P software reports that the user has x downloads and y uploads in progress, but that usage is wrong.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?

Re:A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada by Iam · 2003-12-17 05:23 · Score: 1

Section 3 of the Copyright act states that "copyright" means, in relation to that work, the sole right to produce, reproduce the work, to perform the work, to publish the work and to communicate the work. It also includes the sole right to authorise such acts. It's an infringement of coypright to do any of these things if you are not the copyright holder or if the copyright holder has not authorized you do to the act. A "work" includes a musical work. (i.e. a song)

The quirky thing about the Canadian Copyright Act however is that section 80 of the Copyright Act says that the act of reproducing a musical work onto an audio medium for private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of copyright in the musical work. This exception to liability is conditional upon the payment of remuneration on blank audio recording media, for which there is a tariff in Canada. However, the exception does not apply to "distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade" (which sounds allot like uploading) or "communicating to the public by telecommunication" (again, which sounds allot like uploading). There is case law out there that says that its the sender, and not the receiver of the communication, who communicates.

That's why allot of people say you can download, because what you are doing is reproducing a musical work onto an audio medium (eg: your hardrive or whatever) for private use. But that if you upload, you can't rely on the exception because you are either distributing or communicating without the copyright holder's consent.

So, if 2 parties - a borrower and a lender - have a piece of software on their respective computers which copies a CD over the internet, this action is perfectly legal. The lender is initiating the action. The lender paid the levy for the CD that is being burned. The borrower is not distributing or communicating to the public at large.

The lender might still beliable for copyright infringement. Remember, the "private copying" exception only applies to the act of reproduction. The lender might be either communicating a work to the public by telecommunication or distributing a musical work without the copyright holder's consent. However, if there are only two parties in your scenario, it would be very difficult to make a case that the "lender" here is communicating to the public by telecommunication because one person does not equal "public". You might still be distributing, but again, it may be tough to show that.

--
"Software is a tool, and as a toolbuilder I must struggle with the uses to which the tools I make are put." - Bil

yes...AND NO by whittrash · 2003-12-17 05:38 · Score: 1

Claiming that the utter explosion in music piracy over the past few years has absolutely no effect on CD sales is a phenomenon that I call "ignoring the elephant" -- that is, the two-ton elephant in the room wearing a shirt labelled "music piracy."

I think this is much more basic a problem than you describe. This is a business problem and there are a number of severe problems with their business model. To mix my metaphors, I don't think you are seeing the trees for the forest on this issue, although I don't deny there is an elephant in the forest.

On the band side of the equation you have failed to factor the destruction of the local and regional labels, radio stations and music scenes. In the quest to make everything 'product', they have turned as much to focus groups and product testing as they have to talent. It is very difficult for a band to rise up these days and even harder to stay intact. Bands, for the most part do not make money off of the music now, they make it by touring and selling t-shirts. There is a massive disincentive for bands to even try. Those bands that are really good, often stick to their local scene and never go national because the pressure is too much and they don't want to ruin their lives in what will be a soul sucking adventure that will most likely lead to breakup and ruin instead of profit.

Independant distribution is a thing of the past for the most part. The venues that were the life blood of many labels, especially radio, have dried up. Homogenization is virtually absolute. I recently saw a TV add for a radio station advertising that they weren't Clearchannel, how pathetic is that, not being Clearchannel is considered a marketable asset. So not only is there no product, there is no way to deliver a variety people might care to sample.

On the listener side, a few top executives 'decide' what we want to hear. They select groups based on mass appeal, engineer a 'product' and push it as much as they can. People don't like being told what to listen to, they like what they like and are often in another world from the recording industry. There is a basic disconnect. I don't listen to commercial radio any more, there isn't any point, they don't have anything I want to hear. It is boring to hear the same play list over and over again. I don't buy CD's for the most part, and I don't miss them at all. If I want music, I can get roughly 200gigs from my friends if I want it, but for the most part I don't care. I used to buy music. Not any more. There are a lot of people like me.

So on the development, distribution and listener channels of delivery there is an impediment to using recording industry products. A smart company would tailor products to my interests and break through delivery roadblocks with good products and marketing tailored to user needs instead of threatening people. Basically, the message is 'The record industry doesn't have good products, they can't move their worthless crap and people won't buy the crap if they could move it... and also they SUCK ASS.' The record industry is in decline, this isn't rocket science, it is how the market works, they have no product, they have no way to move the product and they have an increasingly uninterested pool of people to sell to.

Re: your sig by StarKruzr · 2003-12-17 05:50 · Score: 1

Because one is a service, and the other is copyrighted content. You decrease the value of the service for everyone else by taking it without paying for it. You do not decrease the value of the content by taking it without paying for it. Even you should be able to figure that out.

--

+++ATH0

Well said. by thatguywhoiam · 2003-12-17 05:53 · Score: 1

Wish I could mod this through the roof.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.

Nor fair use Re:simple answers by hacksoncode · 2003-12-17 05:59 · Score: 1

I will point out that fair use is also not a "natural law" in the sense of being inevitable like laws against theft and murder.

Of course, in the past, creators of digital media have had various levels of control over how information is copied, starting with the rather difficult and expensive stone tablets, progressing through the ages up to easily copiable and unprotectable analog media, and moving on towards potentially impossible to copy digital media playable only on specific devices.

Frankly, given all the options, and the desire for people to be able to actually make a living creating information, I'm inclined to think that copyright *is* as inevitable as laws against theft and murder.

No, there's no "constant" in quality by jonskerr · 2003-12-17 07:23 · Score: 1

Everything is going down the shitter. If the quality of music is constant, why are there so many younger bands covering old songs? Corporate music contract policies create the crap. 70s crap came from heartfelt (but crappy) artists; nowadays crap comes from artists being contractually obligated to create something, anything that can be sold. It's about the money, not the music. That's autocrap.

And saying there's a large elephant in the room doesn't answer the question "Why is the elephant there?" Yes, partly it _is_ cheaper to download than buy. But also there's the factor of people not wanting to patronize a business they regard as Evil. Once the word got out on how CCR got screwed, more people began examining the egregious abuses of this industry, and people began to wake up. No one wants to feed these bastards when buying an album is hardly a necessity. I've been avoiding buying CDs for years because I don't want the industry to get my money. When I finally broke down and bought a Metallica cd/dvd combination (the packaging said the DVD was a _Concert_ of the entire album; it turned out to be a rehearsal, full of off-key singing and no audience or energy, talk about false advertising) it turns out the whole album was, in fact, crap. Surprise surprise. If there were a return policy on the crap, more people would be willing to pay for music in the first place. Fuck 'em.

The other factor I consider important in this debate is the whole consumer lifestyle. Housing prices have skyrocketed since the 70s; small towns have died a slow death and more people have migrated to larger and larger suburban houses or increasingly expensive cities. People work longer and longer hours at worse jobs they hate, just to pay the huge mortgage/rent. Entertainment becomes more important in people's lives but more expensive (comparatively). And corporations have increased their political power more and more since the 70s until now a congressman has way less power in Washington than a lobbyist does. The corporations have us by the balls and they're squeezing every last cent out of us and giving us less and less back. No raise this year, sorry dude, and your co-pays are going up 50%. And the rent goes up, oh and the bank now charges $27 for an overdraft even though their cost is still less than $5. No wonder people are downloading for all they're worth; it's the only way we can get back at them!

--
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon

uploaders by SQLz · 2003-12-17 08:37 · Score: 1

Uploading? What is that? I thought we 'download' files to someone elses computer?! Thats what they taught me on MSNBC!!

Slashdot Mirror

CRIA Prepares To Sue P2P Copyright Violators

383 comments